Summary
The Court rejected promoted diploma-holder Assistant Engineers’ claim to the same 9/16-year promotional scales as colleagues directly recruited to that post. Their entitlement fell under the general stagnation-relief circular, whose conditions they did not satisfy, rather than the special circular for direct recruits and specified deemed direct recruits. Earlier favourable High Court rulings did not override binding Supreme Court precedent, and a new 23-year claim could not be introduced in written submissions.
Issues
- Whether promoted diploma-holder Assistant Engineers could claim parity with direct recruits for 9/16-year promotional scales.
- Whether earlier favourable judgments or a claim first advanced in written submissions justified relief.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 7(a), 9 and 10(4), Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965Distinguished direct recruitment and promotion, including the limited AMIE-qualified reserved-quota category treated as direct recruits for the scale scheme. (¶¶ 4, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Scheme features 1 and 2, Punjab State Electricity Board circular dated 23 April 1990Applied the general scheme to promotees, counting from initial recruitment and taking account of normal promotions already earned. (¶¶ 7, 17, 22)
- Paragraph 2 and appended Note, Punjab State Electricity Board circular dated 24 May 1990Confined special scales to direct recruits and the specified deemed-direct-recruit categories; ordinary promotees remained governed by the earlier circular. (¶¶ 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Held
- The appellants’ admitted route was promotion from the Junior Engineer cadre, whereas their comparators had been selected through direct recruitment. The special circular’s validity was unchallenged, and the appellants could not claim parity under it; their promotions within the relevant periods also defeated the claim under the general circular. (¶¶ 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Deemed direct-recruit treatment under the reserved AMIE category was a limited legal fiction. The appellants, diploma holders without an assertion of passing both AMIE parts, did not establish qualification and appointment within the protected category. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Favourable High Court decisions inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s later decision in Krishan Kumar Vij could not govern the legal issue. Dismissal of special leave petitions against those orders did not make them binding precedent for the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 18, 23)
- The separate claim to benefits after 23 years had not been pleaded in the writ petition or appeals and could not be introduced for the first time as a factual contention in written submissions. (¶ 24)
Result
All appeals dismissed; High Court order denying the claimed promotional-scale parity upheld.