Civil Writ Petition No.14929 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14929 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 13, 2011 Swatantar Parkash Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS UHBVNL and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner joined as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with Beas Construction Board and served there w.e.f. 18.9.1974 to 28.6.1984. Due to the completion of the Beas Construction project, the services of all employees including the petitioner were dispensed with and the petitioner along with various other persons given appointment in the Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short 'the BBMB') as per the decision rendered in case of Jaswant Singh Versus Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 115. While working as a Junior Engineer with the BBMB, the petitioner was given the charge to look after duties of Sub Divisional Civil Writ Petition No.14929 of 2009 -2- Engineer in his own pay scale w.e.f. 23.4.2001. Concededly, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of SDO with the regular pay scale. It was stop gap arrangement for a limited period, which was allowed to continue for a considerable long time. The petitioner, thus, continued to work on the post of SDO till his retirement. In between 4.7.2007, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer, but on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement against the post on which he was already working. The petitioner has continued to handle the higher responsibility w.e.f. 23.4.2001 to 4.7.2007. The petitioner would refer to various reports to urge that the post of SDO was lying vacant. Similarly reference is made to Annual Administration Report for the year 2001-2002 to plead that some posts of the SDO had been lying unfilled. It is also pleaded that the BBMB does not have any Rule of its own regulating the service conditions of Class-I and Class-II posts. Promotion from Class III to Class II posts is made by the BBMB following the Punjab Government Rules. The petitioner had worked as Junior Engineer for long time and had maintained a meritorious record of service. The reference is made to the legal position governing grant of promotion in the State of Punjab in respect of Group-A, Group-B and Group-C services. This promotion is granted on the basis of benchmark, which has to be 'Good'. Having averred that the petitioner was fully eligible and entitled for promotion, but still was not promoted and was made to work on ad hoc basis, the petitioner has claimed pay and allowances for the post of S.D.O. The petitioner has preferred to the Civil Writ Petition No.14929 of 2009 -3- cases of some other persons like Rajinder Singh Rana, Purshotam Lal Sharma, Jagan Nath, Darshan Singh, H.C. Sohal and V.P. Gaddi, who had worked as SDO and had made representations for claiming regular scale of pay to the post of SDO along with arrears and interest for the period they performed their duties. A Civil Writ Petition No.18369 of 2006 titled as Rajinder singh Rana and others Versus BBMB was, thereafter, allowed by this Court in this regard. Copy of the same is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-5. This Court has held in the above-said writ petition that the petitioners therein were entitled to the pay scale of higher post for the period they had discharged their duties on such posts. The plea raised that the said writ petition was filed with delay and laches, was also rejected. The petitioners therein were held entitled to grant of arrears which were restricted to a period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the petition. Similar is the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, would dispute this aspect and refer to judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the decision of this Court in C.W.P. No.18369 of 2006 was challenged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has dismissed the SLP filed by the BBMB, but with observation that this shall not been taken as a precedent in future cases. As per the counsel, the Supreme Court has declined to interfere primarily on the ground that the relief in the meantime had been released to the said petitioners therein. Once the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP, the Civil Writ Petition No.14929 of 2009 -4- judgment passed by the Division Bench (Annexure P-5) would be relevant factor to be considered and would be precedent to follow. Since the issue is identical, respondents being same, no case for deviating from the view taken by the Division bench is made out. The direction by the Supreme Court that its order may not be cited precedent would not make much difference as the Division Bench judgment was interfered with. The petition, accordingly, is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the arrears of pay of the post of SDO on which he has performed duties. The arrears shall be restricted to the period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The case of the petitioner for grant of promotional increment from the date he was promoted on ad hoc basis, be also considered by the respondents. The petitioner may make a representation if he is so advised, in this regard and if does so, it shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. The petitioner would be at liberty to claim the interest on the delayed payment, if he is otherwise entitled to the same. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a Civil Suit, if his claim for interest is declined by the respondents. January 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika I JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.14929 of 2009 -5-