Holding

Promotee employees appointed by promotion under Regulation 7(a)(ii) are entitled only to the time‑bound promotional scale under the First Circular and not to the benefits of the Second Circular granted to directly recruited Assistant Engineers, thus they are not entitled to parity with such directly recruited officers.

Summary

The appellants, originally Junior Engineers, were promoted to Assistant Engineer under Regulation 7(a)(ii) and Regulation 10 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965. They sought the 9‑year/16‑year time‑bound promotional scale granted to directly recruited Assistant Engineers under the Second Circular, claiming parity with two junior colleagues appointed by direct recruitment. The Court examined the First and Second Circulars, noting that the Second Circular applies only to directly recruited officers, whereas promotee employees are covered solely by the First Circular. Since the appellants had been promoted within the 9‑year period, they were ineligible for the time‑bound scale and could not claim equality with the directly recruited officers. Relying on the judgment in Krishan Kumar Vij, the Court found no error in the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether promotee Assistant Engineers are entitled to the time‑bound promotional scale under the Second Circular applicable to directly recruited Assistant Engineers.
Whether the appellants can claim parity in pay and promotional benefits with directly recruited Assistant Engineers on the basis of seniority.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Single Judge’s order granting the 9/16‑year time‑bound promotional scale to the appellants.
Interpretation of the First and Second Circulars and the applicability of Regulations 7(a)(i), 7(a)(ii) and 10.
Whether denying the appellants the benefit violates the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Subjects

time bound promotional scalepromotion by senioritydirect recruitmentequalityservice regulationsPunjab State Electricity BoardArticles 14 and 16civil serviceparity of pay

Judgment

[2020] 11 S.C.R. 966

INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS
v.
THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 3837 of 2020)
DECEMBER 03, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil)
Regulations, 1965 – Appellants, promoted from the post of Junior
Engineer, claimed time bound promotional scale while working as
Assistant Engineers – Allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside –
On appeal, held: Claim of the appellants was for time bound
promotional scale after completion of 9-16 years’ service only at
par with two juniors to them in the category of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) who were appointed by way of direct recruitment – Appellants
categorically admitted that the said persons were appointed by way
of direct recruitment – While appellants were promoted to the post
of Assistant Engineer in their term as per their seniority in the cadre
of Junior Engineer – Promotee employees are entitled to time bound
promotion scale in terms of the First Circular only – Second Circular
which was issued to grant time bound promotional scale to directly
recruited Assistant Engineers would not apply to the appellants as
they are instead covered by First Circular – No error in the order
passed by High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellants were promoted to the post of
Assistant Engineers under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with
Regulation 10 of the Civil Regulations. Shri Kirpal Singh Mangat
and Shri Raj Kumar Garg, who were junior to the appellants in
the category of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were appointed by way
of direct recruitment to such posts on the basis of their
qualifications under Regulation 7(a)(i) of the Civil Regulations.
Two sets of circulars were issued by the Punjab State Electricity

966
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER

Board for grant of time bound promotional scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
The circular dated 23.04.1990 is the First Circular. Circular dated
24.05.1990 is the Second Circular. The Second Circular was issued
to grant time bound promotional scale to directly recruited
Assistant Engineers. However, the promoted employees were
said to be entitled to time bound promotional scale as per the
First Circular itself. The said Second Circular was issued to
equally apply to the Civil and Electrical Branch of the Board.
The Note to the said Circular mentions that the Circular has been
issued under the Civil and Electrical Regulations. The claim of
the appellants was based upon the First Circular for 9/16 years’
time bound promotion scale though the appellants have referred
to the Second Circular in para 18 of the writ petition. The Second
Circular was not even annexed with the writ petition, however
the same has been annexed by two other appellants. There is no
challenge to the legality and validity of the Second Circular. Still
further, the appellants have never claimed that there should be
equal pay being members of the same cadre. The claim of the
appellants was for time bound promotional scale after completion
of 9-16 years’ service only at par with Kirpal Singh Mangat and
Raj Kumar Garg. The appellants were promoted within 9 or 16
years from their initial appointment, therefore, they are not
entitled to time bound promotional scale. Kirpal Singh Mangat
and Raj Kumar Garg were appointed by direct recruitment as
Assistant Engineer (Civil), whereas the appellants have been
promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Hence, the
Second Circular would not be applicable to them. The promotee
employees are entitled to time bound promotion scale in terms
of the First Circular only. Hence, the appellants are not entitled
to claim any parity with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg.
Some other employees have been granted benefit by virtue of
the orders passed by the High Court. However, the principle
laid down in the aforesaid judgments run counter to the
subsequent judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar Vij. The
Special Leave Petition in many of these cases were dismissed
but such dismissals would not be a binding precedent for this
Court. The dismissal of special leave petitions is of no
consequence on the question of law. [Paras 5-9, 16-18][971-F;
972-A, G; 976-H; 977-A-B; 979-B-H]
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A 1.2 The appellants being only Diploma holders were
promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10.4 of
the Regulations. They had the opportunity to compete for direct
recruitment after 12 years of service, which they never availed
or remained unsuccessful. The appellants would have been
entitled to claim parity with Kripal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar
B
Garg only if they were qualified and promoted against the posts
reserved for those employees by direct recruitment.
Consequently, the appellants cannot claim time bound promotion
after completion of 9/16 years at par with Kirpal Singh Mangat
and Raj Kumar Garg. It has been categorically admitted by the
C appellants that the said persons were appointed by way of direct
recruitment under Regulation 7(a)(i) as provided under
Regulation 9 of the Regulations. The appellants, on the contrary,
have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in their
term as per their seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer. Thus,
Second Circular which would be applicable to Kirpal Singh Mangat
D
and Raj Kumar Garg would not apply to the appellants as they
are instead covered by the First Circular. In terms of the First
and Second Circulars, the employees of the Board who have not
earned promotion within 9 years from their initial recruitment
are entitled to time bound promotional scale. If they have been
E promoted within the initial 9 years, the next promotion cannot be
granted to them after completion of 3 years. [Paras 20-22][981-
F-H; 982-A-D]
1.3 Therefore, the High Court in the impugned judgment
was correct in law holding that in view of the judgment in Krishan
F Kumar Vij, the appellants are not entitled to time bound
promotional scale on the basis of parity in the other cases. In
view of the said facts, no error is found in the order passed by the
High Court which may warrant any interference of this Court.
[Paras 23, 25][982-D-F]
Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Rajinder Singh
G
Patpatia and Anr. (2002) 1 Recent Service Judgments
32; Krishan Kumar Vij v. State of Punjab (Writ Petition
No. 19306 of 2003) – referred to.
Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij
& Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 701 [2010] 10 SCR 462;
H
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE 969
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

Kunhayammed & Ors v. State Of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC A
359:[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 10 SCR 462 relied on Para 12
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 relied on Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3837 B
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1085 of 2011.
With
C
Civil Appeal Nos. 3835 & 3836 of 2020.
P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., B. K. Satija, Ms. Neha Mehta, Himanshu
Satija, Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Satinder
S. Gulati, Mrs. Priya Puri, Ms. Rashmi Sachdeva, Vibhav Srivastava,
Ms. Yati Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against a common order of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 09.04.2014 whereby the intra-
Court appeals filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board were allowed
and the order of Learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petitions for the E
grant of 9/16 years’ time bound revised promotional scale to the appellants
was set aside.
2. The facts of the appeals are similar but for the sake of reference,
facts are taken from the appeal preferred by Inderjit Singh Sodhi and
others. The appellants herein have claimed time bound promotional scale F
while working as Assistant Engineers. They were promoted to the said
post from the post of Junior Engineer. The services of the appellants are
governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers
(Civil) Regulations, 19651.
3. The post of Assistant Engineer as per Regulation 7 is required G
to be filled up (1) by direct recruitment in terms of Regulation 9; (2) by
promotion in terms of Regulation 10 or (3) by transfer of an officer
already in services of a Government or another Government or

1
for short, ‘Civil Regulations’ H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A Undertaking of the Government. The qualification required for direct
recruitment under Regulation 9 is BE in Civil Engineering from a
recognised institution or university. The Regulations further permit serving
Section Officers who possess three- or four-years diploma in Civil
Engineering and minimum 12 years qualifying service to apply for the
post by way of direct recruitment. Regulation 10, on the other hand,
B
provides for the promotion of the candidates with not less than 10 years’
experience subject to the condition that their number do not exceed 30
per cent of the total number of the cadre posts of the Assistant Engineers.
4. The relevant extract of the Civil Regulations read as under:-
C “7. Recruitment to the Service shall be made by the Appointment
Authority by any of the methods indicated below as may be
determined in each case:-
(a) In case of posts of Asstt. Engineers.
(i) By direct appointment as provided in Regulation 9
D
(ii) By Promotion as provided in Regulation 10
(iii) By transfer of an officer already in the service of a Government
or any other State Electricity Board or an Undertaking of
Government.
E
xx xx xx
QUALIFICATION FOR DIRECT APPOINTMENT
9. No Person shall be appointed as AE (Civil) on training by
direct appointment unless he has passed BE in Civil Engineering
F from recognised Institution/Univ.(Equivalency as notified by the
Institution of Engineers Association of Indian Universities/
Pbi.University/Pbi.Univ. Calendar.)
PSEB Serving sectional officers (Civil) who possess ¾ years
diploma in Civil Engineering & have minimum 12 years qualifying
G service as Sectional Officer (Civil) with satisfactory service record
shall also be eligible to apply for the post.
xx xx xx

H
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE 971
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

QUALIFICATION FOR APPOIONTMENT BY A
PROMOTION
10.1 (a) Sectional Officers (Civil) under the Board having their
record above average and with not less than 10 years experience
to their credit shall be eligible for appointment to the service as
Assistant Engineer, subject to the condition that their number does B
not exceed 20% of the total number of cadre posts of Assistant
Engineers excluding the posts with B.D.M.B./B.C.B. and
deputation posts or posts where PSEB cannot directly post its
officers i.e. Hydel/Design Directorate, Chandigarh.
(b) Over and above this reservation, Sectional Officers (Civil) C
with requisite service/experience may be considered for additional
vacancies of Assistant Engineers for field work without any fixed
percentage.
2. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
D
3. Persons appointed by promotion as Assistant Engineers under
Sub Regulation (1) and (2) above shall not be eligible for promotion
to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and above, unless
they possess the qualification prescribed in Regulation-9.
4. 9% of the cadre posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) shall be
E
reserved for Departmental employees (Technical Subordinates
and Drawing Staff) who while in the service of the Board have
qualified Section (A) and (B) of A.M.I.E. Examination and have
completed three years service. (This shall take effect from 15th
April, 1983).”
5. The appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers F
under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10 of the Civil Regulations
as stated in para 4 of the writ petition which reads as under:
“4. That the petitioners were appointed as AE Class II service by
way of promotion under Regulation 7(a)(ii) i.e. by way of
promotion out of Junior Engineers Grade I Service: whereas Kirpal G
Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg have been appointed under
Regulation 7(a)(i) i.e. by way of direct recruitment provided under
Regulation 9 of the PSEB Regulations 1965.”

H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A 6. Shri Kirpal Singh Mangat and Shri Raj Kumar Garg, who
were junior to the appellants in the category of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
were appointed by way of direct recruitment to such posts on the basis
of their qualifications under Regulation 7(a)(i) of the Civil Regulations.
A representation was submitted by the appellants claiming parity with
Kirpal Singh and Raj Kumar Garg with regard to the time bound
B
promotional scale. Such representation was decided on 06.11.2012,
wherein, it was inter alia said to the following effect:
“And whereas, Er. Inderjit Singh Sodhi, AEE (Retd.) was promoted
from the post of S.O./Civil to AE/Civil w.e.f. 19.8.77 as per avenue
of his promotion in terms of Reg.7 read with Reg. 10 of PSEB
C Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965 and further
promoted as AEE(Civil) w.e.f. 22.3.85. Whereas Er. Kirpal Singh
Mangat and Er. Raj Kumar Garg both AEE now senior Executive
Engineer (Civil) while working as S.O./ Civil applied for the post
of AE/Civil under direct recruitment category and were selected
D for the post of AE/Civil and given fresh appointment letter.
xx xx xx
And whereas, from the record it is evidence that interese these
persons named Er. Inderjit Singh Sodhi, Er. Kirpal Singh and Er.
Raj Kumar Garg came into service on 3.1.62, 12.9.64. 14.10.64
E dates and all of them got an opportunity to go to the direct
recruitment quota of Assistant Engineers. The Board advertised
the posts for Assistant Engineers/Civil to be filled through direct
recruitment in which the existing Board employees can also apply
and in that contest Er. K. S. Mangat and Er. Raj Kumar Garg had
F also applied and got selected as Assistant Engineer/Civil and were
given the new appointment letters from the effective dates and
they continue to serve as per the Board regulations framed from
time to time.
xx xx xx”
G 7. Two sets of circulars were issued by the Punjab State Electricity
Board for grant of time bound promotional scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The
relevant extract from the circular dated 23.04.19902 reads thus:

2
H hereinafter referred as “First Circular”.
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE 973
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

“Features of the Scheme A
1. The benefit of first time bound placement into promotional/
devised promotional scale, as determined and notified on the
basis of principles, enunciated above, would become available
to an employee on completion of 9 (Nine) years of regular
service on a post and the second time bound promotional/ B
devised promotional scale would become available after
completion of 16 (sixteen) years of service. If an employee
gets normal promotion to the next higher post before
completion of 9 years service from the date of direct
recruitment then he will not be given first time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale. He will be eligible to C
get second time bound promotional/devised promotional scale
after the completion of 16 years of service counted from the
date of direct recruitment provided he does not earn second
normal promotion before the completion of the above said
16 years of service. Further an employee placed into the D
first promotional/devised promotional scale on account of
his length of service will not be placed into the second
promotional/devised promotional scale before completion of
atleast three years from the date of his placement into the
first promotional/devised promotional scale.
E
For example an employee who has completed 17 years of
service in an inducting post and was not promoted upto
1.1.1986, will be allowed 1st time bound promotional/devised
promotional scale on 1.1.1986 and the 2nd time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale will be admissible on
1.1.1989 i.e. after completion of three years service in the F
first time bound promotional/devised promotional scale.
2. At the time of placement in the time bound promotional/
devised promotional scale to each employee in any cadre
the prescribed period will be counted from the date of
commencement of service to the lowest post on which G
regular appointment has been made through direct recruitment
in the concerned cadre.
3. At the time of placement in the time bound promotional/
devised promotional scale, the employee will be allowed
promotional increment(s), as are admissible on promotion H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A under the provisions of Regulations 8 of PSEB (Revised Pay)
Regulations, 1988 and as amended from time to time.
4. If an employee already in the service of the Board is directly
appointed to a higher post through open selection then for
the purpose of grant of time bound promotional/devised
B promotional scale in that cadre counting of the period of
service will commence from the date of joining the above
post by direct recruitment.
5. The Board shall draw up schedule (s) indicating the lowest
post(s) for direct recruitment in respect of various cadres
C for the purpose of this order, separately.
6. In cases, an employee has already availed of the benefit of
placement to the time bound promotional/devised promotional
scale(s) and is promoted to the next higher post, his pay
would be fixed at the next stage in the same scale. In case
D he is promoted to a post which is lower than the scale in
which he has already been placed on time bound promotional/
devised promotional scale, he will not be entitled to any
increment and continue to draw the pay of the scale in which
he has already been placed.

E 7. In case of employees who do not fulfill the qualification/
passing of examination essential for their promotion to the
next higher post, they shall also be place into the time bound
promotional/devised promotional scale to be specified by the
Board in the schedule as referred to in para 5 (above).

F 8. No anomaly of pay would be claimed by any senior employee
viz-a-viz any other employee merely on the strength of latter
getting his placement into the time bound promotional/devised
promotional scale.
9. The authority competent to grant time bound promotional/
devised promotional scales after 9 years and 16 years service
G
shall be the promoting authority of the employees concerned.
2. The Punjab State Elecy. Board has further decided to allow
benefit of promotional increment(s) to an employee on completion
of 23 years of regular service provided:-
H
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE 975
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

(i) He has not been benefited by the scheme of 9/16 years time A
bound promotional scale.
(ii) He has not earned three regular promotions in his career.
(iii) He has not earned third promotion in his regular service
between 16th and 23rd years of service.
B
(iv) The increments referred to in para-2 above are in the nature
of advance promotional benefit to be absorbed in next regular
promotion.”
8. Another Circular dated 24.05.19903 is part of the record of the
other two appeals preferred by Surinder Kumar Pathak and R.K. Arora C
and another. It reads as under:-
“In supersession of office order no. 195/PRC/Fin-1988 dated
31.3.1990, the Punjab State Electricity Board is pleased to order
that an Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer would
be placed in the next higher scale of Rs. 3000-5000 and allowed a D
minimum pay of Rs. 3500/- in the 10th year i.e. on completion of
9 (nine) years regular service as Assistant Engineer/Assistant
Executive Engineer. Similarly, he would be placed in the next higher
scale of Rs. 4500-6300 in the 17th (Seventeenth) year i.e. on
completion of 16 (sixteen) years regular service as Assistant
Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer. E
The next higher scale will thus be allowed as under:-

AE/AEE (i) 2200-50-2400-60- Basic Scale
2700-3000-100-4000
125-4250(with F
(ii) 3000-100-4000-125- Next Higher Scale with a
5000-150-5600 minimum pay of Rs.
th
3500/- in the 10 year i.e.
on the completion
(iii) 4500-125-5000-150 Second Next Higher scale G
th
5900-200-6300 in the 17
XEN 3000-100-4000-125- Basic Scale
4500-125-5000-150- Next Higher Scale

3
hereinafter referred to as “Second Circular”. H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A 2. The above higher scales will only be available to the directly
recruited Asstt. Engineers as per Regulation 7-a(i) read with
Regulation-9 of PSEB, Service of Engineers (Electrical)
Regulations-1965/ 7-a (i) read with Regulation 9 of PSEB Service
Engineers (Civil) Regulations-1965. The cases of Assistant
Engineers appointed by promotion as per provisions of Regulation-
B
7-a(ii) read with Regulation-10 of the Regulations ibid will be
governed by guidelines circulated vide Secretary/Finance Office
Order No. 197/PRC/Fin-1988 dated 23.4.1990.
Note:- The departmental employees (Technical) Subordinates and
Drawing Staff) who while in service of the Board have been
C promoted to the post of AE (Electrical)/ (Civil) against quota
reserved for promotion from amongst them under Regulation 7-
a(ii) read with Regulation-10(7) of the PSEB Service of Engineers
(Electrical) Regulations-1965/ Regulation 7-a(ii) read with
Regulation 10(4) of the PSEB Service of Engineers (Civil)
D Regulations-1965 shall be deemed to have been appointed as
Asstt. Engineers like the Asstt. Engineers appointed through direct
recruitment under Regulation 7-a(i) read with Regulation-9 of the
Service of Engineers (Electrical)/
Regulation 7-a(i) read with Regulation -9 of the service of
E Engineers (Civil) ibid for the purpose of grant of above next higher
scales after 9-16 years of regular service as Assistant Engineer/
Assistant Executive Engineer/ Executive Engineer/Xen, prescribed
period to be counted from the date of joining the post of Asstt.
Engineer on regular basis. Similarly Graduates in Electrical/
Mechanical Engineering/ Civil EngineeringAMIE qualified/
F AMIE qualified hands who possess this qualification before joining
the service of the Board and subsequently promoted as Assistant
Engineers against quota reserved for promotion from amongst
them in terms of provisions of Regulation 7-a(ii) read with
Regulation 10(9) of Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations-
G 1965/
Regulation 7-a(ii) read with Regulation 10(6) of Service of
Engineers (Civil) Regulations-1965 will be treated likewise.”
9. The Second Circular was thus issued to grant time bound
promotional scale to directly recruited Assistant Engineers. However,
H
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE 977
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

the promoted employees were said to be entitled to time bound A
promotional scale as per the First Circular itself. The said Second Circular
was issued to equally apply to the Civil and Electrical Branch of the
Board. The Note to the said Circular mentions that the Circular has
been issued under the Civil and Electrical Regulations. For the purpose
of better understanding, the format has been changed to put the
B
Regulations in one line as an alternative Regulations.
10. Similar claim for time bound promotional scale was raised by
one Rajinder Singh Patpatia, a promoted Assistant Engineer working
with Bhakra Beas Management Board.The writ petition filed by him
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was allowed by the learned
Single Judge on 26.08.1999 and the intra-Court Appeal against the same C
was dismissed on 13.08.2001 vide judgment reported as Bhakra Beas
Management Board v. Rajinder Singh Patpatia and Anr4. The Special
Leave Petition against such order of the Division Bench was also
dismissed on 15.2.2002.
11. Another writ petition was filed by one named T. R. Bansal, D
junior to the appellants as Assistant Engineer (Civil) which was allowed
by the Division Bench of the High Court on 1.02.2005. The Special
Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on
15.07.2010. Subsequently, Writ Petition no. 468 of 2004 preferred by
T.S. Behl and others was also allowed on 10.02.2006 by the Division E
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
12. A Writ Petition No. 19306 of 2003, Krishan Kumar Vij v.
State of Punjab was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
claiming time bound promotional scale. The writ petitioners were
employed with Bhakra Beas Management Board. The said Board had F
adopted the Circular issued by Punjab State Electricity Board on
26.6.1992. The writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the
High Court on 6.12.2004. The order of the High Court was however
later set aside by this Court in a judgment reported as Bhakra Beas
Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr5.
G
13. Mr. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued
that once the appellants have been promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer, at par with other juniors who may have been appointed by

4
(2002) 1 Recent Service Judgments 32
5
(2010) 8 SCC 701 H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A way of direct recruitment, there cannot be any discrimination in the matter
of pay scale and that they are entitled to equal treatment in the matter of
pay. It was pointed out that the appellants were appointed as Junior
Engineers in 1961-62 and were promoted after 14 years to the post of
Assistant Engineers. In terms of Regulation 7 of Civil Regulations, the
appellants possessed the qualifications for direct recruitment. Hence,
B
the appellants could not be treated differently in comparison to the directly
appointed Assistant Engineers. The directly recruited Assistant Engineers
were granted time bound promotional scale, whereas, the appellants who
were senior to them have been denied such benefits. It was thus contended
that it is a blatant arbitrary and discriminatory act of the respondents
C which was unsustainable in law. It was further argued that there was a
consistent view of the High Court in the cases of T. R. Bansal and T. S.
Behl, who were similarly placed promoted Assistant Engineers with the
Punjab State Electricity Board. They were found to be entitled to time
bound promotional scale w.e.f. 1.01.1986 vide the orders of the High
Court in separate writ petitions filed by them. However, while dismissing
D
the case of the appellants, the High Court relied upon a judgment of this
Court in Krishan Kumar Vij which dealt with the claim of an Assistant
Engineer in the Bhakra Beas Management Board, thus the judgment
relied on was not on similar facts.
14. Mr. Patwalia raised another argument in the written submissions
E that in terms of the Second Circular, the promotee employees are to be
considered for time bound promotional scale in terms of First Circular.
According to the Clause 2(iii) of the First Circular, an employee on
completion of 23 years’ service is also entitled to the benefits of the said
Scheme in case he is not benefited from the Scheme of 9/16 years.
F 15. On the other hand, Mr. Gulati, learned Counsel for the
respondents argued that time bound promotional scale would be applicable
to the promotee officer such as the appellants only in terms of the First
Circular which contemplates that an employee shall be entitled to
promotional scale on completion of 9 years of regular service on a post
G and subsequent second time bound promotional scale after completion
of 16 years of service. If in case an employee gets normal promotion to
the next higher post before completion of 9 years’ service, he would not
be entitled to first time bound promotional scale. He would however be
eligible to get second promotional scale after completion of 16 years’
service, counted from the date of direct recruitment, provided that he
H
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE 979
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

does not earn second normal promotion before the completion of above A
said 16 years’ service. It was also contended that the Second Circular
was not disputed by any of the appellants at any stage.
16. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by Mr. Patwalia.
The claim of the appellants was based upon the First Circular for 9/16
years’ time bound promotion scale though the appellants have referred B
to the Second Circular in para 18 of the writ petition. The Second Circular
was not even annexed with the writ petition, however the same has
been annexed by two other appellants Surinder Kumar Pathak and R.K.
Arora. There is no challenge to the legality and validity of the Second
Circular. Still further, the appellants have never claimed that there should
be equal pay being members of the same cadre. The claim of the C
appellants was for time bound promotional scale after completion of 9-
16 years’ service only at par with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar
Garg.
17. We find that the appellants were promoted within 9 or 16
years from their initial appointment, therefore, they are not entitled to D
time bound promotional scale. Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg
were appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Engineer (Civil),
whereas the appellants have been promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil). Hence, the Second Circular would not be applicable to
them. The promotee employees are entitled to time bound promotion E
scale in terms of the First Circular only. Hence, the appellants are not
entitled to claim any parity with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar
Garg.
18. We find that some other employees have been granted benefit
by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court. However, the principle F
laid down in the aforesaid judgments run counter to the subsequent
judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar Vij. The Special Leave Petition
in many of these cases were dismissed but the such dismissals would
not be a binding precedent for this Court. This argument was also raised
and examined in Krishan Kumar Vij wherein this Court relied upon the
judgment of this Court reported as Kunhayammed & Ors v. State Of G
Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359.Therefore,the dismissal of special leave
petitions is of no consequence on the question of law. The following was
held in Krishan Kumar Vij:

H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A “22. We have already mentioned hereinabove with regard to Clause
2 of the 1990 Order read with Regulation 9 which restricts the
benefit only to directly recruited Assistant Engineers/Assistant
Executive Engineers, meaning thereby that one must possess the
requisite qualification as prescribed under the Regulations, then
only the benefit would accrue to the employee, not otherwise.
B
The Note appended thereto clearly stipulates that even those
employees who were promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read
with Regulation 10(4) shall be deemed to have been appointed by
direct recruitment. This legal fiction is limited. It is applicable only
to those employees who have been promoted in conformity with
C the provisions contained in Clause 4. Thus, the employees who
had passed both Parts (A) and (B) of the AMIE examination and
were promoted against 9% posts reserved for that class were
fictionally treated as direct recruits. Thus, it clearly stipulates that
only those Assistant Engineers who were either directly recruited
or had acquired the requisite qualifications prescribed for direct
D recruitment were chosen to be granted higher scale if they had
been promoted against the post falling within the quota of 9% of
the cadre strength of the said post.
23. The 1990 Order contemplates that it is to be followed as per
regulation which provides that only such persons as have been
E promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4)
shall be treated as direct recruits. In other words, it does not apply
to the promotees irrespective of their academic qualifications nor
can they be treated on a par with the direct recruits. There was a
purpose for treating them so, otherwise, it would have the effect
F of violating the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India, on the premise that unequals
have been treated as equals. It is with that intention, to avoid
criticism and future litigation that such persons who possessed
qualifications for direct recruitment and could be promoted against
the posts falling vacant, would become entitled to claim the benefit.
G Since Respondent 1 did not fall in this category, obviously, he was
not entitled to the higher scale.
24. Thus, there appears to be no illegality committed by the Board
in rejecting Respondent 1’s representation. So, in our considered
opinion, the High Court has clearly erred in setting aside and
H quashing the same.
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI v. THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE 981
ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

25. The critical examination of the impugned judgment passed by A
the Division Bench of the High Court completely defeats primary
purpose of the 1990 Order and provisions applicable to the
employees of the Board. No doubt, it is true that the 1990 Order
was issued only with an intention to remove the stagnation but
this would not give blanket or absolute right to any employee to be
B
entitled to higher pay scale even if he does not fulfil prerequisite
qualifications for holding the higher post. In other words, if he
possesses the required qualifications but is unable to get the higher
post on account of non-availability of such post, then only he can
be categorised as suffering from stagnation as per Order of 23-4-
1990.” C
19. The First and Second Circulars of the Punjab State Electricity
Board were examined by this Court, wherein, it was observed that the
Second Circular is applicable only in respect of employees appointed by
way of direct recruitment. The benefit would not be extended to the
promoted employees. This Court found that the legal fiction is limited in D
respect of the employees promoted under Regulation 7(a)(i) read with
Regulation 10(4). It is applicable to only those employees who have
been promoted in conformity with the provisions contained in Clause 4
of the Regulation 10 of the Regulations which deal with promotion of the
employees who have passed both parts (A) and (B) of A.M.I.E.
Examination and were promoted against 9% posts reserved for that E
Class of direct recruitment.
20. Shri Krishan Kumar Vij, in the reported judgment, was not
possessing A.M.I.E. qualification and thus was never appointed in terms
of Regulation 7(a)(i) read with Regulation 10.4 of the Regulations. In
the present appeals, there is no assertion that any of the appellants have F
qualified both parts of A.M.I.E. Examination which is treated to be
equivalent to the Engineering Degree. The appellants being only Diploma
holders were promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation
10.4 of the Regulations. They had the opportunity to compete for direct
recruitment after 12 years of service, which they never availed or
G
remained unsuccessful. The appellants would have been entitled to claim
parity with Kripal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg only if they were
qualified and promoted against the posts reserved for those employees
by direct recruitment. Consequently, the appellants cannot claim time
bound promotion after completion of 9/16 years at par with Kirpal Singh
Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg. H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A 21. The claim of the appellants of discrimination and arbitrariness
on the basis of time bound promotional scale granted to Kirpal Singh
Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg is not found to be sustainable. It has been
categorically admitted by the appellants that the said persons were
appointed by way of direct recruitment under Regulation 7(a)(i) as
provided under Regulation 9 of the Regulations. The appellants, on the
B
contrary, have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in their
term as per their seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer. Thus, Second
Circular which would be applicable to Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj
Kumar Garg would not apply to the appellants as they are instead covered
by the First Circular.
C 22. In terms of the First and Second Circulars, the employees of
the Board who have not earned promotion within 9 years from their
initial recruitment are entitled to time bound promotional scale. If they
have been promoted within the initial 9 years, the next promotion cannot
be granted to them after completion of 3 years.
D 23. Therefore, the High Court in the impugned judgment was
correct in law holding that in view of the judgment in Krishan Kumar
Vij, the appellants are not entitled to time bound promotional scale on the
basis of parity in the other cases.
24. The argument that the appellants are entitled to promotion
E scale after 23 years was not the case setup either in the writ petition or
even in the present appeals. Such an argument has in fact been raised
for the first time in the written submissions. We find that such a factual
argument cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.
25. In view of the said facts, we do not find any error in the order
F passed by the High Court which may warrant any interference of this
Court. All the appeals are thus accordingly dismissed.

Divya Pandey Appeals dismissed
G

H