REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 23, 2010 Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another .....Appellants VERSUS Arjan Lal Arora ....Respondent 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. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate, for the Caveator-respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Punjab State Electricity Board has filed this Regular Second Appeal to make a challenge to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. Arjan Lal Arora filed a suit seeking benefit of two increments in pay scale of Rs.8550-14500 on his promotion as A.O. w.e.f. 12.12.1999 with start of Rs.9400/-. He also made a grievance that he was not put/granted second time bound promotional scale w.e.f. 19.11.2002 after completion of sixteen years of service. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: The respondent-plaintiff, completion of sixteen years of service, in induction post of S.A.S Accountant was sanctioned second time bound promotional scale (TBPS) of Rs.10,700-15350/- w.e.f. 19.11.2002. This was on the basis of financial circular No.25 of 2003. According to this circular, the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the benefit with two increments in the higher scale on his promotion as Accounts Officer. The respondent-plaintiff also pleaded that he became legally entitled to get benefit of two increments in view of Regulation 8 of Secretary/Finance Circular No.33 of 1988 with the devising of TBPS with retrospective effect. The respondent- plaintiff accordingly made a request for giving him benefit of two increments and his pay was raised to Rs.11050/- from Rs.10700/- as was in other similar cases. He drew arrears of Rs.29,625/-. Later, the Appellant-Board refused to give benefit of two increments and accordingly the suit was filed. The Board took up a plea that it was purely administrative matter and the suit was not competent. It was admitted that the plaintiff was promoted as Accounts Officer and that he was allowed second time bound promotional scale w.e.f. 19.11.2002. It is then mentioned that Secretary, Finance, issued corrigendum on 18.6.2004, amending the first TBPS from Rs.8550-14100 to Rs.8550- 14500 and accordingly the respondent-plaintiff became entitled to one increment, which had already been granted to him. The first Appellate Court found that the seniority of Accounts Officer appointed directly and those by promotion is joint. The Board, however, has denied the benefit to the respondent- plaintiff on the ground that he is not a directly recruited Accounts REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: Officer. Reference is then made to the case of Inder Singh Vasir Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Patiala, 2006 (4) RSJ 499, wherein it is held that these provisions are beneficial provisions so as to avoid stagnation and to provide assured career in the department. The Court accordingly held that there can not be any classification of the employees appointed to the post of Assistant Architect in the Board amongst those who have been appointed by way of direct recruitment or were appointed by promotion and any such classification has no nexus with the object of granting time bound promotion scheme benefits. Relying upon the case of Kamlakar Vs. Union of India, 1999 (4) SCC 756, the Court held that such a classification would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in this case has observed that once direct recruits and promotees are in one cadre, the distinction between them disappears, at any rate so far as the equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of pay scale given is concerned. Birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. In the case of Inder Singh Vasir (supra), the Court went on to observe the material placed on record to show that other departments were not confining the time bound promotion scheme benefits only to direct recruit employees. It can, thus, be noticed that any discrimination on the basis of source of recruitment would be illegal and arbitrary. In this regard, reference can also be made to the decision in Civil Appeal No.40 of 1982, titled D.R.Saini and others Vs. P.S.E.B and Civil Appeal No.41 of 1982, titled as P.S.E.B. Vs. Vinod Kumar Vermani, where it was held that no distinction could be made between the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: Engineer holding diploma holding in one and the same cadre having joint seniority. The view taken by the first Appellate Court is just, fair and equitable and is on the basis of settled law. The submission made only on the basis of circular having been issued or the appreciation of the clause of the circular would not be a substantial question of law, calling for interference in the Regular Second Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. March 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE