Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors Vs. Gurmail Singh  INSC 685 (22
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2898 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5223 of
2004) With Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8130 of
2004) S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals, involving similar questions of fact of law, were taken
up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The factual matrix of the matter, however, would be noticed from the case
of Gurmail Singh.
Appellant Board is constituted and incorporated under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
It is entitled to frame regulations incorporating terms and conditions of
service of its employees in terms of Section 79 (c) of the Act. The regulations
so framed are known as Punjab State Electricity Board Ministerial Services
(Class III) Regulations, 1985.
4. Respondent herein was appointed as a Steno-Typist on or about 28.8.1976.
There existed a common cadre of the Steno-Typist and Lower Division Clerk. He
was appointed on a scale of pay of Rs.110-250 which was revised to Rs.400-600
w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
On the said post, he was placed on a scale of pay of Rs.1200-2200/-.
A scheme for grant of time bound promotion to a higher scale of pay was
formulated by the Board wherefor a circular bearing No.17/90 was issued by its
Finance Department on 23.4.1990. In terms of the said scheme, promotional scale
was to be given to the employees upon completion of 9/16 years of regular
service. The revision in the scale of pay of LDCs was directed by an order
dated 3.10.1990 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The said revision of scale of pay, however,
was to be granted on the basis of total number of years of service as LDC in
the said cadre. The same was, however, implemented in respect of three
categories of employees, namely, who have not been granted any promotion
despite completion of minimum 10 years of service as LDC and Senior Clerk or
five years of service as LDC and remaining of the LDCs not falling in the first
two categories. The ratio for grant of the said promotional scale was fixed at
Material part of the said circular is as under :
"In continuation to this officer order Nol.129/Fin/PRC-1988 dated
11.11.1988, No.147/ Fin/PRC-1988 dated 21.03.89, No.168/Fin/PRC- 1988 dated
15.6.89, No.169/Fin/PRC-1989 dated 26.6.89, No.181/Fin/PRC-1988 dated 20.10.89,
No.189 Fin/PRC-1988 dated 19.01.1990, No.190 Fin/PRC-1988 dated 23.01.1990,
No.211 Fin/PRC-1988 dated 4.7.1990 and office order No.271 Fin/PRC-1988 dated
13.8.1990, the Punjab State Electricity Board is pleased to further revise the
scales of pay of the following categories of employees w.e.f 01.01.1986 as
XXX XXX XXX
3. The Punjab State Electricity Board has also decided that (i) (ii) For
UDCs joining PSEB, as a result of either through direct recruitment or by
promotion from amongst LDCs after passing the Departmental Accounts
Examination, the date of joining as UDC will be taken as the date of first
induction in the PSEB for the purpose of grant of 9/16 years time bound
5. On or about 7.10.1992, the Board in continuation of Finance Circular
No.58/90 dated 3.10.1990 issued a memo on or about 7.10.1992 whereby and
whereunder it was clarified that in the list of LDCs circulated by the Board,
the names of LDCs who had been promoted as UDCs included, then those UDCs would
not be given the revised scale of LDCs stating :
"In accordance with the above instructions, a list of employees to whom
scale of Junior Assistant (1500-2640) is payable w.e.f. 01.01.1988 has been
prepared by this office and is being sent to your office for further action.
While preparing this list, LDCs who have been promoted upto 31.12.87 their
names have not been included in this list.
Still if any employees has been promoted to higher post (UDC/Stenographer
Divisional Accountant, Revenue Accountant) or have been appointed by direct
recruitment by selection by the Board and have joined that post or the service
or any employees have been terminated or have left the Board or has died but
his name has been included in the list, this scale will not be given to those
employees. Names and serial No. of all such employees be informed to this
While preparing the list due care has been taken to include names of all
LDCs who were posted, still if name of any LDC has not been included in the
list be informed to this office along with his serial number, date of birth and
date of joining the Board. LDC/Steno-typist who have forgone promotion as UDC,
are not entitled to this scale.
Those steno-typists who have opted for cadre of stenographer, they are not
entitled to this scale and names of such employees and their serial number in
the list be informed.
While fixing of these employees in this revised scale of 1500-2640 from
01.01.88, instructions issued by the Board from time to time be kept in view.
It is also informed that above scale granted to these LDCs can be reviewed
by the Board."
6. Another circular was issued by the Board on or about 18.7.1994 directing
that those LDCs who are promoted as UDCs would not be given any option to
decide UDC/LDC as their induction post, but some relaxation may be given while
considering individual cases who had been promoted after 1.1.1986 in the
following terms :
"Thereafter Union of Employees submitted demands that those qualified
Lower Division Clerks who have been promoted as Upper Division Clerks after
01.01.1986 be also given opportunity to exercise option as he been given to
Lower Division Clerks who were promoted before 01.01.86.
The Board has considered the entire case and has decided that they cannot be
given opportunity to exercise such option because Lower Division Clerks have
already accepted three pay scales structure on the pattern of Punjab Government
and they were working as Lower Division Clerks on 01.01.86 and not as Upper
Division Clerks. However, keeping in view the hardship to the employees, it has
been decided that case of Lower Division Clerks promoted as Upper Division
Clerks after 01.01.86 on passing departmental examination will not be
considered on merits.
All such cases will be considered by the competent official by giving
relaxation in rules and the case will be referred with self-contained proposal
to the Secretary Finance Department, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala
along with service record of the employee and financial burden involved through
Head of the Department.
It is submitted that all concerned employees be informed about this decision
of the Board so that employees may send their case for consideration by the
competent official. Such cases be disclosed within four months by the employees
so that proper decision be taken in the case."
7. Respondent made a representation to the Board. He, therein, did not state
that his induction post should be treated as LDC. He, in fact, preferred UDC as
his induction post by a letter dated 8.7.1995. In terms of the said letter,
1.1.1986 was fixed as the cut off date. A decision was taken in favour of the
employees. However, they were required to make their representation within the
timeframe fixed thereunder. On or about 15.11.1994, the respondent filed a
representation stating :
"It is respectfully submitted that the Director Personnel PSEB Patiala
Vide memo No.51385/51785/ECM-161 dated 7.10.92 granted scale of 1500-2640
w.e.f. 01.01.88 to LDCs having seniority No.3121 to 3651 and my name was at
serial No.270 (Seniority No.3461) in this list.
However, I was not released this scale because of promotion as UDC from
05.07.86, as such LDCs who are junior to me and having seniority No.3462 to
3651 have been granted pay scale of Rs.1500- 2640 from 01.01.88 i.e. higher
scale than me and were having more basic pay than me. After that the Board has
granted scale of Rs.1640-2925 to the LDCs on completion of 16 years of service
and LDCs junior to me are getting this scale and more salary than me.
Because of these pay anomalies, the Board has granted opportunity to the
LDCs promoted as UDC before 01.01.1986 to exercise option to keep their
induction post as LDC or UDC. Now through letter under reference, the Board has
decided not to grant such option to the LDC promoted as UDC after 01.01.1986
but it was decided that hardship caused to these employees will be considered
It is, therefore, submitted that hardship caused to me by drawing higher pay
scale and my basic pay by employees junior to me be removed and I be granted
pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f.
01.01.88 and pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 on completion of 16 years service and
my salary be fixed accordingly because I have been bearing this hardship for
the last 6/7 years. Kindly remove this hardship at an early date."
8. Another Finance Circular was issued on 31.10.1995 in terms whereof, it
was clarified that for giving the benefit of time bound promotional scheme
after 9/16/23 years of regular service, the induction post is to be treated as
"After considering this case and as per scheme made by the Board vide
office order No.197/Fin/PRC-988 dated 23.4.1990, it is clarified specially that
one employee is entitled for getting benefits of one induction post only during
his whole service. On the points raised by some officers the clarification is
being given as per following :
I. Those Divisional Accountants who are getting 8 years proficiency step up
and 9 years first time bound promotional scale are covered within 25% quota as
SAS Accountant and thereafter they pass SAS Part-II examination, in such case
which post is to be considered as their induction post and from which date?
Those employees who have taken benefit of one induction post for 9 years
promotional benefit, the said post would be considered as his induction post.
II. Those Divisional Accountants who after taking benefit of 9 years first
time bound promotional scale and thereafter clear the four papers of SAS
Part-II and SA Accountant (in qualified quota) and get promotion, whether they
should again be considered as SA Accountant and be given said induction post
after 9/16 years first and second promotional scale or their post of Divisional
Accountant be considered as induction post for grant of time bound promotional
scale after 16 years? In such cases also the benefits of induction post of
Divisional Accountant are entitled for.
III. Those Junior Scale Stenographers who are posted/promoted to the post of
Steno-typist after passing Stenography test, is their post be considered as
their induction post? In such cases the junior scale stenographer is to be
considered as induction post subject to the condition that the concerned
employee has not taken benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional scale of
9. Yet again, the respondent by a letter dated 29.1.1996 opted for UDC as
his induction post, stating :
"With respect it is requested that I joined as Upper Division Clerk on
5.7.1986 and in this way I completed 9 years of my service as Upper Division
Clerk on 4.7.1995. Therefore, I be given 9 years time bound scale of Upper
Division Clerk from 5.7.1995 and my salary be also settled according to
10. Respondent, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute. The Board was
directed to consider his representation pursuant whereto and in furtherance
thereof by an order dated 30.10.2002, representation of the respondent was
rejected, inter alia, on the premise that :
(i) He had not completed 10 years of service as LDC and, thus, did not fall
in the upper ratio of 40% of LDCs;
(ii) He had already been promoted w.e.f. 5.7.1986;
(iii) He had already taken 9 years time on promotional scale keeping his
induction post as UDC on 8.7.1995; and (iv) By reason of FC No.34/95 he was
entitled to the benefit of revision of scale of pay only at one induction
11. The writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the legality and/or
validity of the said order has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.
12. Mr. Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in
support of the appeal, inter alia, would submit :
(i) The High Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take
into consideration that the Board, in exercise of its regulation making power,
was entitled not only to make regulations but also to issue circulars from time
to time. As the validity of the circular letters issued by the Board had not
been questioned, the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable.
(ii) The High Court failed to consider the purport of the circulars and in
any event having not quashed any of them was not correct in granting the
reliefs in favour of the respondents herein.
13. Ms. Rani Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
would submit that i) Other employees having been granted the benefit of
requisite option, there was absolutely no reason why the respondent should be
ii) As the Punjab High Court, in a similar set of facts had granted relief
to the employees which having been upheld by this Court, there is no reason as
to why the respondent should have been treated differently;
iii) As despite the aforementioned judgment of the High Court, a further
option was denied to the respondent, the High Court with a view to avoid
anomaly was right in passing the impugned judgment;
(iv) In any event, the benefit of circular letter dated 48/92 having been
granted to a large number of employees and, in fact, in the case of Gurjant
Singh, he having been allowed to opt both LCD as also UDC as induction posts,
there is no reason as to why the similar benefit should not be granted to the
14. Mr. Gogia, learned counsel for the respondent in the connected matter,
would submit that the case of the respondent stands on identical footing with
that of Gurjant Singh who was junior to him and, thus, it would lead to an
anomalous situation that he shall draw a higher salary than the respondent.
15. Indisputably, the Board being a statutory authority was entitled to
frame its own regulations. Section 15 of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 empowers the Board to appoint Secretary as also such
other officers and employees as may be required to enable it to carryout its
functions under the Act. Section 79 of the Act provides for a regulation making
power. Clause (c) of Section 79 thereof empowers the Board to make regulation
with regard to the duties of officers and other employees as also their
salaries, allowances and other conditions of service. It is not in dispute
that, in exercise of the said power, the Board has made 1985 Regulations,
Regulations 13 whereof reads as under :
"PAY OF MEMBERS OF SERVICE
13. Members of the service shall be entitled to such scales to pay as may be
sanctioned by the Board from time to time. The scales of pay at present in
force in respect of specified posts are given in Appendix-'A'."
16. We may also notice the relevant portion of Appendix A to have a broad
idea as regards the different scales of pay payable to the UDCs and LDCs :
"6. Upper Division Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2000-50-2200 Clerk (With initial
start of Rs.1350/-)
7. Lower Division i) Rs.950-25-1200-30-1560-40-1800 Clerk (With initial
start of Rs.1000/-) ii) Rs.1500-2600 (To 40% after 10 years of service iii)
Rs.1640-2925 (Second time bound scale after 16 years of service)"
The validity of the provisions of the said regulations is not in question.
The power of the Board to issue circulars from time to time in support of the
matters which are not governed by the statute or statutory regulations is also
not in dispute. The Board, as noticed hereinbefore, had been issuing such
regulations from time to time. It is now well settled that the Board, even in
absence of any express provision of statute, may issue such circular.
17. In Meghalaya State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Jagadindra Arjun
[(2001) 6 SCC 446, it was held :
"11. As per Section 79(c), MSEB may frame regulations not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Act and the Rules providing for the duties of
officers and other employees of the Board and their salary, allowances and
other conditions of service. It is to be stated that this is an enabling
provision. MSEB may frame regulations as provided in Section 79(c) of the Act,
but in the absence of any regulations, MSEB can lay down service conditions by
administrative order/instructions. Section 15 of the Act empowers the Board to
appoint its employees as may be required to enable MSEB to carry out its
functions under the Act except the Secretary who is to be appointed with previous
approval of the State Government. The power to lay down service conditions by
regulations is expressly conferred upon MSEB, so it has power to prescribe
service conditions. Section 78-A also provides that except on question of
policy for which the State Government has issued directions, the Board is
entitled to discharge its functions prescribed under the Act which would
include appointment of staff to enable it to carry out its functions and also
lay down service conditions. Hence, if there are no rules or regulations
pertaining to service conditions of its employees, the same could be prescribed
by administrative order and such power of the employer which is a statutory
corporation would be implied."
18. Yet again in Sohan Singh Sodhi v. Punjab State Electricity Board [(2007)
5 SCC 528), M.P. Electricity Board (Supra) was noticed. It was stated :
"10. The power of the State Electricity Board to issue circulars in
exercise of its powers under Section 79(c) of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 is not in dispute. It has the power to frame
regulations. If it can frame regulations, in absence of any regulations,
issuance of executive orders is permissible in law. The power of framing regulations
prescribing conditions of service of its employees appointed by the Board in
terms of Section 15 of the Act cannot be disputed. Thus, in absence of any
rules or regulations governing the service conditions of its employees,
issuance of administrative order is permissible in law vide Meghalaya SEB v.
Power of the Board to issue circulars, therefore, was not in dispute.
The validity of the said circular letters was not in question.
19. It is true that some anomaly stares on the face of the records. It
furthermore appears that a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in PSEB & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar [RSA No.819 of 1989 judgment dated
19th March, 1999] opined that the employees concerned were entitled to the benefit
of the three scales proportionately 20:40:40 with effect from 1.1.1986.
However, in that case, the employee joined the service on 26.8.1975.
He on 7.7.1983 was working as UDC but the Board was treating him as LDC. The
benefit of 16 years' service from the date of joining as LDC was granted to
him. It was in the aforementioned situation, the employee therein was being
treated as a Lower Division Clerk.
The special leave petition thereagainst has been dismissed by a Bench of
this Court by an order dated 31.3.2000 in Punjab State Electricity Board &
Ors. v. Supinder Kumar Modgil [SLP (C)___/2000 (CC No.2119/2000)].
20. Our attention has further been drawn to a decision of another learned
Single Judge of the High Court in Chanan Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board,
Patiala RSA No.337 of 1988 wherein, inter alia, it was held :
"A senior person who has proved his merit vis-`- vis the others in the
same cadre would be placed in the lower scale of pay while the juniors who were
either not qualified or had been found unsuitable for promotion would be placed
in higher scale of pay. Such a course of action would be arbitrary, unfair and
would even amount to denial of equality of opportunity in promotion. I am
reluctant to accept any interpretation of the order of revision of pay scales
which would deny the benefit of higher scale to a senior and result in grant of
a higher scale to a junior. Mr. Goyal points out that the grant of a higher
scale to the extent of 50% of the posts of Head Office Assistants is not promotion.
Even if it is assumed to be so, the getting of higher scale carries with it
the pecuniary benefits. A senior person is entitled to all those benefits which
a junior in the cadre is getting. The pay of a senior, in this case, cannot be
less than that of his junior."
21. It is, however, not denied or disputed that representations had been
received from various employees in response to the Finance Circular dated
18.7.1994 opting for retaining the post of LDC as induction post, vis-`-vis the
hardship which would be faced by them. Each such representation had been
considered on its own merits.
22. We have also noticed hereinbefore that another Finance circular was
issued in 1992 with a view to remove the anomaly between scales of pay of LDC
and UDC. The option granted, however, was in respect of those who had been
promoted before 1.1.1986.
23. No such option was granted for those who had been promoted after
1.1.1986. It may seem unfortunate but that was the legal position. We would,
however, assume that despite absence of such a circular, the employees could
give an option on their own. Such an option could be exercised even while
making a representation for the purpose of consideration of the Board on the
ground of hardship. Unfortunately, the respondent herein thought it fit to opt
for the post of UDC as his induction post. Our attention although has been
drawn to the case of Gurjant Singh, it is evident, that in terms of Finance
Circular No.34/95 dated 31.10.1995, an employee was entitled to get the benefit
of one induction post only during his entire service. In this behalf,
Regulation 13 is also significant in the sense that it was for the Board to fix
scales of pay to which we have adverted to hereinbefore.
24. Respondent, however, it will bear repetition to state, by his letter
dated 29.1.1996 opted for 9 years' time bound scale of Upper Division Clerk
from 9.7.1995 to which we have adverted to heretobefore.
An employee given the option to opt for one or the other induction post or
one or the other scheme is supposed to know his right or benefit. An employee
cannot be permitted to opt for one or the other scheme again and again. Schemes
are framed for the benefit of the employees ordinarily as a one time measure.
If by reason of a wrong option, an employee suffers, he himself is to be blamed
therefor and not the employer.
25. In State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kuldip Singh & Anr. [(2002) 5 SCC
756], the power of the Board to issue circulars was reiterated, stating :
"9. From the contents of the two circulars, it is manifest that an
employee in order to be eligible to get the selection grade pay has to complete
15 years' of service and he is not to be given such scale of pay before he
fulfils the said eligibility criteria. It follows as a consequence that no
employee can claim selection grade pay before completing 15 years of service on
any ground including the ground that an employee junior to him has already been
given such grade of pay. The position is further clarified in the circular
issued in May 1987 wherein it is provided that in the event of a junior
employee getting the selection grade pay earlier, the post in the said grade
may be kept vacant for the senior employee who may be given the benefit of the
pay prescribed for the selection grade pay only after he completes 15 years of
service. The interest of the senior employee in such cases is safeguarded by
making the provision that the inter se seniority between the two employees will
remain undisturbed despite the junior employee getting the selection grade pay
earlier than the senior employee.
10. In view of the position communicated in the circulars the claim of an
employee for a selection grade post was to be dealt with only in accordance
with the provisions in the circular. The reasons stated in the judgment/order
of the High Court that the respondents were entitled to the higher grade pay
with effect from 1-1-1978 as employees junior to them were granted such pay by
that date is extraneous and irrelevant for the purpose. The High Court
overlooked the provisions in the circulars while directing the appellants
herein to grant selection grade pay to the respondents before they completed 15
years of service. The High Court was clearly in error in issuing a writ of
mandamus apparently against the government circulars which were binding on the
parties. The judgment/order passed by the High Court is, therefore,
unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment/order is set
aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.
It is made clear that if the respondents have already drawn any amount in
pursuance of the judgment/order of the High Court, the same will not be
recovered from them."
26. Here also the High Court had failed to take note of the effect and
purport of the said circular.
Ordinarily, the power of judicial review should not be exercised in a case
of this nature.
Furthermore, the High Court failed to take into consideration, the legal
principle that Article 14 being a positive concept, constitutional scheme of
equality cannot be applied in illegality.
27. The High Court, therefore, should have considered the effect of the
circulars vis-`-vis validity or legality thereof. The matter might have been
different if the said circulars were issued without jurisdiction or otherwise
found to be unconstitutional or ultra vires the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act.
28. Having, however, held so, the question which arises is whether it is a
fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. We think we should not. Respondent is a
well-qualified person. He has passed the departmental examination. He is in
service for more than 32 years. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division
Clerk as far back as on 5.7.1986. He might have made a mistake in giving a
wrong option but it has not been denied or disputed that in the implementation
of the policy decision of the Board dated 3.10.1990, respondent had been
receiving an amount which is far less than the one which was being received by
In the case of Gurdeep Singh, we have seen that whereas the representation
of his juniors had been allowed, his representation had been rejected. This may
meet the requirements of law but we, having regard to our extra-ordinary power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, may also pass some order which
would meet the ends of justice. We say so not on ipse dixit but on the premise
that even in terms of Fundamental Rules 22(1)(a), there exists a provision for
stepping up of pay. The said principle would be applicable when a junior to a
senior officer belonging to the same category and the post from which they have
been promoted and in the promoted cadre, the junior officer on being promoted
later than the senior, gets a higher pay.
Technically the same may or may not be permissible but we may notice that
this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. P. Jagdish & Ors. [(1997) 3 SCC
177] applied the same principle, stating :
"This being the principle of stepping up contained in the Fundamental
Rules and admittedly the respondents being senior to several other Senior
Clerks and the respondents having been promoted earlier than many of their
juniors who were promoted later to the post of Head Clerks, the principle of
stepping up should be made applicable to the respondents with effect from the
date their juniors in the erstwhile cadre of Senior Clerks get promoted to the
cadre of Head Clerks and their pay was fixed at a higher slab than that of the
respondents. The stepping up should be done in such a way that the anamoly of
juniors getting higher salary than the seniors in the promoted category of Head
Clerk would be removed and the pay of the seniors like the respondents would be
stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for their junior officer in
the higher post of Head Clerk. In fact the Tribunal by the impugned order has
directed to apply the principle of stepping up and we see no infirmity with the
same direction subject to the aforesaid clarifications. This principle of
stepping up which we have upheld would prevent violation of equal pay for equal
work but grant of consequential benefit of the difference of salary would not
be correct for the reason that the respondents had not worked in the post to
which 35% [sic Rs.35 as] special pay was attached in the lower cadre. But by
reason of promotion the promotee-juniors who worked on the said posts, in fact,
performed the hard duties and earned special pay. Directions to pay arrears
would be deleterious to inculcation of efficiency in service. All persons who
were indolent to share higher responsibilities in lower posts, on promotion
would get accelerated arrears that would be deleterious to efficiency of
29. It is not a case where the junior has been getting a higher pay because
of his earlier officiation in the higher post by way of officiating promotion.
We may notice that in such an event, this Court in Union of India & Anr.
R. Swaminathan & Ors. [(1997) (7) SCC 690], opined :
"2. The aggrieved employees have contended with some justification that
local officiating promotions within a Circle have resulted in their being
deprived of a chance to officiate in the higher post, if such chance of
officiation arises in a different Circle. They have submitted that since there
is all- India seniority for regular promotions, this all- India seniority must
prevail even while making local officiating appointments within any Circle.
The question is basically of administrative exigency and the difficulty that
the administration may face if even short-term vacancies have to be filled on
the basis of all-India seniority by calling a person who may be stationed in a
different Circle in a region remote from the region where the vacancy arises,
and that too for a short duration.
This is essentially a matter of administrative policy. But the only
justification for local promotions is their short duration. If such vacancy is
of a long duration there is no administrative reason for not following the
Most of the grievances of the employees will be met if proper norms are laid
down for making local officiating promotions. One thing, however, is clear.
Neither the seniority nor the regular promotion of these employees is affected
by such officiating local arrangements. The employees who have not officiated
in the higher post earlier, however, will not get the benefit of the proviso to
Fundamental Rule 22."
30. Although the order of the Board cannot be said to be wholly illegal and
without jurisdiction warranting interference at the hands of the High Court
but, we are of the opinion that the respondents should be put at the same scale
of pay from the same day which was being paid to the employees who was next
below him in the post of LDC. We would, however, clarify that the respondent
shall not be entitled to treat his induction post both as LDC and UDC. The
amount payable to the respondent in terms of these observations may be
recalculated within a period six weeks.
31. To the aforementioned extent, the appeals are allowed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.