9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Board's circulars and regulations. 2. Entitlement to time-bound promotional scales. 3. Discrimination in granting benefits to employees. 4. Validity of options exercised by employees for induction posts. 5. Anomalies in pay scales between senior and junior employees. Detailed Analysis: Legality of the Board's Circulars and Regulations: The appellant Board, constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, is empowered to frame regulations regarding the terms and conditions of service for its employees under Section 79(c) of the Act. The Board has issued various circulars and regulations, such as the Punjab State Electricity Board Ministerial Services (Class III) Regulations, 1985, and several Finance Circulars, to manage pay scales and promotional benefits. The Supreme Court noted that the Board, even in the absence of express statutory provisions, can issue such circulars to manage service conditions, as affirmed in cases like Meghalaya State Electricity Board v. Jagadindra Arjun and Sohan Singh Sodhi v. Punjab State Electricity Board. Entitlement to Time-Bound Promotional Scales: The respondent, initially appointed as a Steno-Typist, was later promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC). The Board's scheme for time-bound promotions, as detailed in circulars issued on 23.4.1990 and subsequent dates, provided promotional scales after 9/16 years of regular service. However, the respondent's entitlement was disputed based on his promotion date and the completion of required service years. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had opted for UDC as his induction post and had already availed the 9-year time-bound scale for UDC. Discrimination in Granting Benefits to Employees: The respondent argued that he faced discrimination as other employees were granted the benefit of choosing their induction post, which was denied to him. The Court noted that the Board had issued circulars allowing certain employees promoted before 1.1.1986 to exercise such options, but this was not extended to those promoted after this date. Despite the respondent's claims of discrimination, the Court held that the Board's decision was based on its regulations and circulars, which were not challenged for their validity. Validity of Options Exercised by Employees for Induction Posts: The respondent initially opted for UDC as his induction post but later sought to change this to LDC to avail better promotional benefits. The Supreme Court emphasized that employees must be aware of their rights and benefits when exercising such options. The Court held that once an option is exercised, it cannot be changed repeatedly, and any hardship resulting from a wrong option is the employee's responsibility. Anomalies in Pay Scales Between Senior and Junior Employees: The respondent highlighted pay anomalies where juniors received higher pay due to different induction post options. The Supreme Court acknowledged these anomalies and referred to the principle of stepping up pay to address such issues. The Court cited cases like Union of India v. P. Jagdish, where similar principles were applied to ensure senior employees did not receive less pay than their juniors. The Court directed that the respondent's pay be adjusted to match the scale of the next junior employee in the LDC post, without allowing dual induction post benefits. Conclusion: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, directing the recalculation of the respondent's pay to match that of the next junior employee in the LDC post, while maintaining that the respondent cannot claim dual benefits for both LDC and UDC induction posts. The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice, considering the respondent's long service and qualifications. The appeals were allowed to the extent of recalculating the pay, with no order as to costs.
|
