IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17689 of 2003 Date of Decision : November 19, 2010. Surinder Kumar Pathak .....Petitioner versus P.S.E.B. and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.9.2003 (Annexure P-8) passed by the P.S.E.B. rejecting his claim for the grant of the benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional pay scale. The impugned order dated 10.9.2003 (Annexure P-8) reveals that the promotional pay scales have been denied to the petitioner after observing that the judgment dated 26.8.1999 delivered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9162 of 1994 (Rajinder Singh Patpatia versus The Bhakra Beas Management Board and another) is inapplicable in the case of non-degree holder promotees like him. The petitioner joined as Sectional Officer on 25.11.1961 and C.W.P.No .17689 of 2003 2 was promoted as Assistant Engineer and then as Additional Executive Engineer followed by his further promotion as Senior Executive Officer (Civil). The question as to whether the time bound promotional pay scale after 9/16 years service as Assistant Engineer is admissible to the Graduate Engineers only or the diploma holder promotees are also entitled to it, was considered by this Court in Rajinder Singh Patpatia's case (supra) and it was held that since employees of both the categories constitute a common cadre with joint seniority, no distinction could be drawn on the basis of their source of recruitment. The Single Bench judgment in Rajinder Singh Patpatia's case (supra) was unsuccessfully assailed in L.P.A.No.1127 of 1999 which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 13.8.2001 (Bhakra Beas Management Board versus Rajinder Singh Patpatia and another, 2002 (1) RSJ 32), after observing as follows:- “......The B.B.M.B. has adopted the circular dated 24.5.1990 for its application to the engineers working with them. The petitioner has promoted as A.D.E./S.D.O. On 25.4.1971 and was regularized as such w.e.f. 1.5.1979. He completed 16 years of service in the year 1987 much before the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.11.1990. Another reason for taking the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of circular dated 24.5.1990 is that these are beneficent provisions made for the breaking of stagnation to bring efficiency in the working of the officers. The petitioner has since retired on 30.11.1990 C.W.P.No .17689 of 2003 3 no prejudice is likely to be caused to any employee in the service........” The Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondents also met with the same fate. The issue involves herein, thus, is no longer re-integra. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the afore-cited decision and it is directed that the consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum. Dasti. November 19, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE