Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram , (SC) BS194916
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 890 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 22843 of 2005). D/d. 12.2.2009.

Punjab State Electricity Board and others - Appellants

Versus

Jagjiwan Ram and others - Respondents

WITH Civil Appeal No. 891 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22989 of 2005)

For the Appellants :- Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocate.

For the Respondents :- Mr. S.L. Aneja, Advocate and Mr. K.L. Taneja, Advocate.

Constitution of India, Article 16 - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79 - Time bound promotion - Electricity Board introduced a scheme for giving time bound provisional scales and increments to employees on completion of 9, 16 and 23 years - This scheme was applicable to employees which were stagnating in particular positions for a long time - Scheme is applicable to employees who rendered regular service - Ad hoc or work-charged employees not entitled to benefit of such time bound promotional scales or promotional increments.

[Para 13]

Cases Referred :-

State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association, 2000(4) SCT 664 : [(2000)8 SCC 4].

State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal, 2001(4) SCT 297 : [(2003)11 SCC 732].

Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No. 4382 of 2002.

Jaswant Singh v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 440.

State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, 1997(1) SCT 497 : [(1997)2 SCC 517].

State of Punjab v. Ishar Singh, 2002(1) SCT 72 : (2002)10 SCC 674.

State of Haryana and ors. v. Ravinder Kumar, Civil Appeal Nos. 5740-5741/1997, decided on 31.10.2000.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. - Leave granted.

2. With a view to give relief to the employees who were stagnating in particular positions for a long period of time, the Punjab State Electricity Board [for short, "the Board"] introduced a scheme for giving time bound promotional scales/increments on completion of 9/16/23 years of regular service. The same was circulated vide office order dated 23rd April, 1990, the relevant portions of which are extracted below :-

Sd/-

Deputy Secretary/Finance."

(Emphasis added)

3. The respondents, who were engaged as work charged employees in the service of the Board between 18.11.1971 and 23.10.1993 and were appointed on regular basis on different dates between 7.11.1979 and 26.5.1999, filed writ petitions for issue of a direction to the Board and its officers to count their work charged service for the purpose of grant of time bound promotional scales/promotional increments from the date of completion of 9/16/23 years service.

4. The appellants contested the claim of the respondents by asserting that benefit of time bound promotional scales can be given only from the date of completion of 9/16 years regular service and promotional increments can be given on completion of 23 years regular service and that work charged service cannot be equated with regular service for the said purpose. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants, reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another, 2000(4) SCT 664 : [(2000)8 SCC 4] and State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others, 2001(4) SCT 297 : [(2003)11 SCC 732] and it was averred that work charged service rendered by the writ- petitioners (respondents herein) cannot be counted for extending them the benefit of time bound promotional scales and/or promotional increments.

5. The Division Bench of the High Court did not advert to the rival pleadings and contentions but granted relief to the writ petitioners by simply relying upon order dated 31.10.2000 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5740-5741/1997, State of Haryana and ors. v. Ravinder Kumar & ors.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that work charged service cannot be treated as regular service for the purpose of the scheme framed by the Board for grant of time bound promotional scales on completion of 9/16 years of regular service or promotional increments on completion of 23 years of regular service because the work charged employees are not appointed after following the procedure prescribed for regular appointment. He further argued that work charged employees constitute a separate class and they cannot claim parity with regular employees in the matter of seniority, pay fixation, promotion, etc. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that even though the work charged service is not synonymous with regular service, the High Court did not commit any error by directing grant of benefit of the scheme to respondents because their services were subsequently regularized. They strongly relied on instructions issued by the State Government vide circular No. 100012/39/2002-5 P-22/9406 dated 17th July, 2002 and argued that after having implemented the order passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4382 of 2002, Satbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana, the appellants cannot deny them benefit of time bound promotional scales/ promotional increments on the spacious ground that work charged service cannot be clubbed with regular service.

7. We have considered the respective submissions. Generally speaking, a work charged establishment is an establishment of which the expenses are chargeable to works. The pay and allowances of the employees who are engaged on a work charged establishment are usually shown under a specified sub-head of the estimated cost of works. The work charged employees are engaged for execution of a specified work or project and their engagement comes to an end on completion of the work or project. The source and mode of engagement/recruitment of work charged employees, their pay and conditions of employment are altogether different from the persons appointed in the regular establishment against sanctioned posts after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Act or rules and their duties and responsibilities are also substantially different than those of regular employees. The work charged employees can claim protection under the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any particular statute but they cannot be treated at par with the employees of regular establishment. They can neither claim regularisation of service as of right nor they can claim pay scales and other financial benefits at par with regular employees. If the service of a work charged employee is regularised under any statute or a scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment from the date of regularization. His service in the work charged establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular establishment unless a specific provision to that effect is made either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularization. In other words, if the statute or scheme under which service of work charged employee is regularised does not provide for counting of past service, the work charged employee cannot claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts, fixation of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments etc.

8. In Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others [(1979) 4 SCC 440], this Court considered the issue relating to nature of work charged establishment, status of work charged employees and held that the employees appointed on work charged establishment are not entitled to service benefits available to regular employees.

9. In State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, 1997(1) SCT 497 : [(1997)2 SCC 517], the Court considered the questions whether principle of equal pay for equal work can be invoked for granting parity to the work charged employees with regular employees and whether the provisions of the Rajasthan Service (Concessions on Project) Rules, 1962 and Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the same do not treat employees of the work charged establishment at par with regular employees. After noticing the earlier judgment in Jaswant Singh's case, the Court held :

10. The ratio of the above mentioned judgments is that work charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of employees much less regular employees and further that the work charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules or policy framed by the employer.

11. What to say of work charged employees even those appointed on ad hoc basis cannot claim parity with regular employees in the matter of pay fixation, grant of higher scales of pay, promotion etc. In State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another (supra), a three-Judge Bench considered the question whether service of an employee appointed on adhoc basis can be equated with that of regular employee for the purpose of grant of selection grade in terms of the policy contained in circulars dated 2nd June, 1989 and 16th May, 1990 issued by the Government of Haryana and answered the same in negative. The facts of that case were that one Rakesh Kumar Singla who joined service as Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis on 4.1.1980 was appointed on regular basis with effect from 29.8.1982 after selection by the Public Service Commission. He represented to the Government for grant of selection grade on completion of 12 years service commencing from 4.1.1980. As the Government did not accede to his request, Rakesh Kumar Singla filed writ petition in the High Court. On a reference made by the Division Bench, the matter was placed before a bench of three-Judges. By majority judgment, the larger bench held that the service rendered by an employee on the basis of adhoc appointment must be clubbed with his regular service for the purpose of grant of selection grade in terms of the policy framed by the State Government. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and held :

The Court then referred to the provisions contained in the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class-II, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970 and held :-

12. In State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others, 2002(1) SCT 72 : [(2002)10 SCC 674] and State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others [(2003)11 SCC 732], the two-Judge Benches referred to the judgment in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association (supra) and held that adhoc service rendered by the respondents cannot be clubbed with their regular service for the purpose of grant of revised pay scales, senior/selection grade, proficiency step-up and for fixation of seniority.

13. A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes it clear that the benefit of time bound promotional scales was to be given to the employees only on their completing 9/16 years regular service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional increments could be given only on completion of 23 years regular service. The use of the term 'regular service' in various paragraphs of the scheme shows that service rendered by an employee after regular appointment could only be counted for computation of 9/16/23 years service and the service of a temporary, adhoc or work charged employee cannot be counted for extending the benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments. If the Board intended that total service rendered by the employees irrespective of their mode of recruitment and status should be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments, then instead of using the expression '9/16 years regular service' or '23 years regular service', the concerned authority would have used the expression '9/16 years service' or '23 years service'. However, the fact of the matter is that the scheme in its plainest term embodies the requirement of 9/16 years regular service or 23 years regular service as a condition for grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments as the case may be. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound promotional scales/promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service.

14. The order passed by this Court in Ravinder Kumar's case is clearly distinguishable. In that case, counsel appearing for the State had conceded that period during which an employee had worked on work charged basis is counted for the purpose of grant of increment as well as for computation of qualifying service for pension. In view of his statement, the Court held that there is no reason why such service should not be counted for the purpose of giving additional increment on completion of 8/12 years service and higher scale on completion of 10/20 years service. The order does not contain any discussion on the issue whether the work charged service can be equated or clubbed with regular service for grant of service benefits admissible to regular employees. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as laying down any proposition of law which can be treated as precedent for other cases.

15. The instructions issued by the State Government on 17th July, 2002 for implementation of the order passed in C.W.P. No. 4382 of 2002, Satbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana are also of no help to the respondents' cause. The order passed by the High Court was binding and the same had to be given effect to and in the absence of any stay by this Court, the Government was bound to give effect to the same. Even if the benefit of that order was extended to some other employees, the same cannot be relied upon for interpreting the scheme framed by the Board. In any case, the view expressed by the High Court in Satbir Singh's case (supra) cannot be made basis for granting relief to the respondents by ignoring the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to herein above.

16. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Appeals allowed.