Punjab State Electricity Board and Others vs Surjit Singh

A.N. Jindal, J.—The defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred as ''the defendants'') have preferred this regular second appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the first Appellate Court. Substantial question of law in this case is as under:-

Whether promotional increment was available to an employee when he has already been placed on a scale available to the higher post.

The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as ''the plaintiff''), was appointed as Lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board on 14.03.1980 and he completed 23 years of service as such on 14.03.2003. Thus, he claimed that he was entitled to the promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service, as he had also been given such promotional increments on completion of 9 and 16 years of service. He has also placed reliance on a letter dated 14.12.2000 (Ex. P 2), which provides that the matter of these types would be decided by the Chief Accounts Officer/Chief Auditor. He has also placed reliance on the letter dated 28.07.2000 (Ex. P 3) and pleaded that he could not be deprived of his right to have this promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service. He further pleaded that the defendants have wrongly denied him such benefit on the ground that he had not cleared the required departmental examination.

The stand taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff was appointed as a trainee Lineman on 14.03.1980 and his monthly salary was Rs. 100/-. He was allowed regular scale of Lineman i.e. Rs. 400-600/- w.e.f. 14.07.1980 and was given the benefit of one increment on account of proficiency step up on completion of 8 years of service on 14.07.1988. Thereafter, on completion of 9 years of service, he was placed in the scale of 5900-10,000/-. Again, on completion of 16 years of service, he was given the scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- (old), which was available to the Junior Engineer-I, though he was performing his duties as Lineman. It was the next higher scale to the post, which he was holding at that time, therefore, he was not entitled to promotional scale on completion of 23 years of service.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Relief.

The trial Court and the first Appellate Court were at variance in their opinions.

Heard, there is no dispute that the plaintiff was provided two step up increments on completion of 9 and 16 years of service. A scheme was introduced to provide three step up increments to the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board, in the year 1990 and was amended from time to time. Amarjit Singh, Divisional Accountant (DW-1) has stated that first proficiency step up was given to the plaintiff on completion of 8 years of service on 14.07.1988 and thereafter, on completion of 9 years of service, he was given another promotional benefit and was placed in the scale of Rs. 5900-10,000/-. However, on completion of 16 years of service, he was given old scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-, which was available to the Junior Engineer-I at that time, though the plaintiff was performing the duties of a Lineman. Thereafter, in view of finance circular No. 17/90 office order No. 197/Finance PRC-1988 dated 23.04.1990 and finance circular No. 20/2000, office order No. 392/Finance/PRC-121 dated 28.07.2000 (Ex. D 1 and Ex. D 2 respectively), the plaintiff was not entitled to 23 years promotional increment benefits, as he was already placed in the scale, which is higher than the scale of his next higher post. He has further clarified that the plaintiffs next promotion from Lineman was to the post of Junior Engineer-II and the next promotion after Junior Engineer-II is Junior Engineer-I. Since the plaintiff was not given the pay scales of Junior Engineer-II, but of Junior Engineer-I, therefore, he having already placed on the higher scale, was not entitled to the 3rd proficiency step up. He has further stated that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to clear the departmental examination for post of Junior Engineer-II or Junior Engineer-I, as laid down in the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineer Regulations, 1965 (for brevity ''the Rules''), but he could not clear the same, as such he was not promoted for the said post. He has further stated that since the plaintiff did not earn any promotion on completion of 9 years and 16 years of service, therefore, he was not entitled to the promotional increment after completion of 23 years.

Initially, a letter for awarding 3 promotional benefits was issued vide order No. 197/Finance/PRC-1988 dated 23.04.1990 introducing a scheme to grant two promotional scales to the Punjab State Electricity Board''s employees on completion of 9 years and 16 years of service, but thereafter, a Finance Circular No. 5/1993 (Ex. P 1) was issued for extending the benefit of 23 years of service on the following conditions:-

(i) He has not been benefited by the scheme of 9/16 years time 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.

(iv) The increments referred to in para-2 above are in the nature of advance promotional benefit to be absorbed in next regular promotion.

The defendant-board further clarified that 3rd promotional increment was to be granted under regulation-4 (10) of PSEB MSR Vol. I Part-I. Then another Finance Circular No. 20/2000 dated 28.07.2000 (Ex. P 3) was issued, whereby it was also decided that grant of benefit of promotional increment to an employee on completion of 23 years service, as envisaged in its office order No. 384/Fin./PRC-121 dated 09.11.1999, will be governed by the following conditions:-

(i) he/she has the avenue of three promotions, but has not earned three regular promotions in his/her regular service from the date of joining on the induction post/or any other post specifically declared as induction post for granting time bound promotional/devised promotional scale.

(ii) He/she has not earned third promotion in his/her regular service between 16th and 23rd years of service.

(iii) He/she has not been placed in a scale which is higher than the scale of his/her next higher post.

(iv) The increment(s) are in the nature of advance promotional benefits to be absorbed in the next regular promotion.

(v) Those who forego promotion shall not be entitled for this benefit.

Clause (iii) of the aforesaid letter indicates that the employee, who have not been placed in a scale which is higher than the scale of his/her next higher post, could be extended such benefit. But, in this case, the plaintiff was placed in the higher scale of his next higher post. As such, certainly letter (Ex. P 3) does not support the case of the plaintiff, over which, he himself placed reliance.

Even otherwise, a perusal of the letter dated 23.04.1990 (Ex. D 1), as referred to above, indicates that if an employee has been given a maximum scale upto Rs. 3500/-, as awarded to the plaintiff in this case, then he is not entitled to further benefits.

Since, the plaintiff has been extended the promotional benefits and he having not filed any appeal qua the relief for extending him promotion, cannot now be extended such relief.

Thus, taking the case from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the promotional increment from the date he completed 23 years of service. The first Appellate Court either did not take note of the aforesaid Rules or not properly interpreted the letters Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 3, so also Ex. D 1. Therefore, the impugned judgment appears to be based on mis-appreciation of evidence. The plaintiff having given the promotional scale, was not entitled to another promotional benefit for the 3rd time. As such, the impugned judgment required interference. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted; the impugned judgment is set aside and the judgment passed by the trial Court is restored.