IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.890 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.22843 of 2005)

Punjab State Electricity Board and others … Appellants

                  Versus

Jagjiwan Ram and others       … Respondents

WITH

Civil Appeal No.891 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.22989 of 2005)

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. 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:-

“In continuation consolidation and supersession of instructions contained in  this  office  order  No.174/PRC/Fin-1988  dated  17.07.1989,  Memo No.11163/11863/PRC/Fin-I/1988/L-VI/(Prop)  dated  19.1.1990  and  O/o No.194/PRC/Fin-1988, dated 30.03.1990.

The Punjab State Electricity Board have been seized of the problems of stagnation prevailing amongst the various cadres of regular employees and its consequent effect on their efficiency, is felt that an employee should, under ideal service conditions get normally two promotions from his initial

recruitment level during his service.  However, this is not always possible owing to  non-availability of  promotional posts.   The aspiration of  the employees, can, however be met to a great extent by allowing time bound higher scales to the employees at two stages in their service career. The Punjab  State  Electricity  Board  has  therefore,  decided  to  introduce  a scheme  to  allow  time  bound  benefit  of  promotional  scales  after  the completion of  9/16 years of  regular service in the PSEB,  provided the maximum benefit on being placed in the time bound promotional scale does not exceed five increments including promotional increment(s) to the subordinate employee having a maximum scale upto Rs.3500/- except the categories where the benefit of time bound placement to higher scale is applicable on the Punjab Govt.  pattern as in the case of  teachers etc. When the benefit so exceeds five increments, the time bound promotional scale will be so revised that the minimum benefit on being placed in the time bound promotional scale is  five increments including promotional increment(s).  It is clarified that in devising the scale, the case of a direct recruit will be taken, who presumably enters service on minimum of the scale on 1.1.1986.  A promotee employee will be fixed at the minimum of this  promotional revised  time bound scale  and in case  he has already crossed the minimum of time bound promotional scale or revised higher time bound scale, as the case may be, his pay will be fixed as if he has been  promoted  in  the  ordinary course  i.e.,  by  allowing  promotional increment(s).  Likewise a direct recruit on completion of nine years regular service will draw minimum of the promotional time bound revised scale irrespective of difference of more than five increments between the pay drawn by him on completion of 9 years service and the minimum of this promotional revised time bound scale and in the event of his pay having already crossed the minimum of this promotional revised time bound scale or promotional time bound scale, as the case may be, his pay will be fixed as he has promoted in the ordinary course i.e.  by allowing promotional increment(s).

The scheme to allow ‘Time Bound benefit of Promotional Scale’ will take effect from 1.1.1986.  However, the payment of arrears would be spread over to two years i.e. arrears from 1.1.1986 to 28.2.89 and 1989-90 would be paid in 1990-91 and 1991-92, respectively.

Features of the Scheme:-

1. The benefit  of  first  time bound placement into promotional/revised promotional  scale,  as  determined  and  notified  on  the  basis  of principles enunciated above, would become available to an employee on completion of 9 (Nine) years of regular service on a post and the second  time  bound  Promotional/Revised  Promotional  Scale  would become available after completion of 16 (sixteen) years of service.  If an employee  gets  normal  promotion  to  the  next  higher  post  before completion of 9 years service from the date of direct recruitment then he will not be given first time bound Promotional/Revised Promotional scale.   He  will  be  eligible  to  get  second  time  bound Promotional/Revised  Promotional  Scale  after  the  completion  of  16

years of service counted from the date of direct recruitment provided he does not earn second normal promotion before the completion of the above said 16 years of service.  Further, an employee placed into the first  Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale on account of  high length  of  service  will  not  be  placed  into  the  second Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale before completion of at least three years from the date of his placement into the first promotional revised promotional scale.

For example an employee who has completed 17 years of service in an induction post and was not promoted upto 1.1.1986,  will be allowed 1st time bound Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale on 1.1.1985 and the 2nd time bound Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale will be admissible on 1.1.1989 i.e.  after completion of three years service in the first time bound Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale.

2. For granting the time bound Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale to each employee in any cadre, the prescribed period will be counted from the date of commencement of service on the lowest post on which regular appointment has been made through direct recruitment in the concerned cadre.

3. At  the  time  of  placement  in  the  time  bound  Promotional/Revised Promotional  Scale,  the  employee  will  be  allowed  promotional increment(s), as are admissible on promotion under the provisions of Regulation  8  of  PSEB  (Revised  Pay)  Regulations,  1988  and  as amended from time to time.

4. If an employee already in the service of the Board is directly appointed to a higher post through open selection then for the purpose of grant of time  bound  Promotional/Revised  Promotional  Scale  in  that  cadre counting of  the  period  of  service will  commence from the  date  of joining the above post by direct recruitment.

5. The Board shall draw up schedule(s) indicating the lowest post(s) for direct recruitment in respect of various cadres for the purpose of this order, separately.

          Xx     xx    xx    xx     xx

i) The Punjab State Elecy. Board has further decided to  allow benefit  of  promotional  increment(s)  to  an  employee  on completion of 23 years of regular service provided:-

ii) He has not been benefited by the scheme of 9/16 years time bound promotional scale.

iii) He has not earned three regular promotions in his career.

iv) He  has  not  earned  third  promotion  in  his  regular  service between 16th and 23rd years of service.

v) The increments referred to in para-2 above are in the nature of advance promotional benefit  to  be  absorbed  in next  regular promotion.

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) 8

SCC 4] and State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others [(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 regularization 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 regularized

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 regularized 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 vs. 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) 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:

“A  work-charged  establishment  thus  differs  from  a  regular establishment  which  is  permanent  in  nature.  Setting  up  and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a “work” and availability of funds for executing it. So far as employees engaged in work-charged  establishments  are  concerned,  not  only  their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the employees of the regular establishment. A regular establishment and a work- charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the  persons  employed  on  those  establishments  thus  form  two separate and distinct classes.  For that reason, if a separate set  of rules  are  framed  for  the  persons  engaged  in  the  work-charged establishment and the general rules applicable to persons working on the regular establishment are not made applicable to  them, it cannot  be  said  that  they  are  treated  in  an  arbitrary  and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is well settled that the

Government has  the  power to  frame different rules for different classes of employees. We, therefore, reject the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1993 that clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 2 of RSR are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and uphold the view taken by the High Court.

The Project Rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of the power available to it under Rule 42 of the RSR.  They are subsidiary  rules  made  for  the  purpose  of  granting  special concessions  and  allowances  to  government  servants  working  on projects. When non-application of the main rules, namely, RSR to work-charged employees is not found to be violative of Articles 14 and  16  by  the  High  Court  it  is  difficult  to  appreciate  how the subsidiary rules for that reason only can be held to be violative of those articles. The High Court failed to consider this aspect and in our opinion, erroneously struck down Rules 2(b) and (d) of the 1962 Project Rules and Rules 4(2) and (4) of the 1975 Project Rules.

It  was also contended on behalf of the State that the High Court having held that the workmen working on the regular establishment and the employees working on a work-charged establishment belong to  two  separate  categories  and,  therefore,  separate  classification made by the Government in that behalf is reasonable, committed a grave error in striking down Rules 2(b) and (d) of the 1962 Project Rules and Rules 4(2) and (4) of the 1975 Project Rules by invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. The reason given by the High Court  for taking that view is  that  the  project  allowance is compensatory  in  nature  and,  therefore,  the  classification  made between  the  work-charged  employees  and  the  employees  of  the regular establishment has no rational nexus with the object sought to be  achieved  by  those  Rules.  What  the  High  Court  failed  to appreciate  is  that  when  an  employee  working  in  the  regular establishment is transferred to a project he has to leave his ordinary place of residence and service and go and reside within the project area. That is  not the position in the case of  an employee who is engaged in the work-charged establishment for executing that work. Respondent Kunji Raman and other employees on whose behalf he had filed the petition were all engaged for execution of  the Mahi Project  and  thus  they  became  a  part  of  the  work-charged establishment of Mahi Project. They were not required to shift from their regular place of service. The High Court also failed to consider that for such employees the pay scales under the Pay Scale Rules are also different. The material produced by the State goes to show that while  fixing  the  pay  scales  of  employees  of  the  work-charged establishment of Mahi Project the element of project allowance was also included therein and for that reason their pay scales were higher than the  pay scales  of  general category work-charged employees, some of whom were transferred and posted on the Mahi Project. Except a general denial in the rejoinder-affidavit by Kunji Raman no other material has been produced to point out that the said claim of

the Government is not correct. The order dated 30-4-1981 annexed with the rejoinder-affidavit of Kunji Raman is with respect to those work-charged employees  who were absorbed  on 43  regular posts were newly created. They thus ceased to be work-charged employees employed on a project and became general category work-charged employees whose pay scales were different and were, therefore, paid the project allowance. Thus the claim made by respondent Kunji Raman and other similarly situated  employees  for granting them project allowance was really misconceived. From what is now stated by them in the counter-affidavit,  it  appears that what they really want is  parity in  all  respects  with the  employees  of  the  regular establishment. In other words, what they want is that they should be treated as regular employees of the Public Works Department of the Rajasthan Government and should be given all benefits which are made available under the RSR and the Project Rules. Such a claim is not  justified  and,  therefore,  the  contention raised  in  that  behalf cannot be accepted.”

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 vs. 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:

“Coming to the circular dated 2-6-1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner  and  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  Haryana, Finance Department,  it  appears that  the  aforesaid  circular had been issued for removal of anomalies in the pay scale of Doctors, Deputy Superintendents and Engineers, and so far as Engineers are concerned, which are in Class I and Class II, it was unequivocally indicated that the revised pay scale of Rs.3000 to Rs.4500 can be given after completion of 5 years of regular service and Rs.4100 to Rs.5300 after completion of 12 years of regular service. The said Financial Commissioner had issued yet another circular dated 16-5- 1990,  in view of  certain demands  made by officers of  different departments.  The  aforesaid  circular  was  issued  after reconsideration by the Government modifying to some extent the earlier  circular  of  2-6-1989,  and  even  in  this  circular  it  was categorically indicated that so far as Engineers are concerned, they would get Rs.3000 to 4500 after 5 years of regular and satisfactory service  and  selection  grade  in  the  scale  of  pay  of  Rs.4100  to Rs.5300, which is limited to the extent of 20%  of the cadre post should be given after 12 years of regular and satisfactory service. The aforesaid two circulars are unambiguous and unequivocally indicate that a government servant would be entitled to the higher scale indicated therein only on completion of 5 years or 12 years of regular service and further the number of persons to be entitled to get the selection grade is limited to 20%  of the cadre post.  This being the position, we fail to understand how services rendered by Rakesh Kumar from 1980 to 1982,  which was purely on ad hoc basis, and was not in accordance with the statutory rules can be taken into  account  for  computation  of  the  period  of  12  years indicated in the circular. The majority judgment of the High Court committed serious error by equating expression “regular service” with “continuous service”.  In our considered opinion under the terms and conditions  of  the  circulars dated  2-6-1989  and 16-5- 1990, the respondent Rakesh Kumar would be entitled for being considered to have the selection grade on completion of 12 years from 29-1-1982 on which date he was duly appointed against a temporary post  of  Assistant  Engineer on  being  selected  by  the Public Service Commission and not from any earlier point of time. The  conclusion  of  the  majority  judgment  in  favour of  Rakesh Kumar, therefore, cannot be sustained.”

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:- “A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules  puts  the  controversy  beyond  any  doubt  and  the  only

conclusion which could be drawn from the aforesaid Rules is that the services  rendered  either  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  or  as  a  stopgap arrangement, as in the case in hand from 1980 to 1982 cannot be held to be regular service for getting the benefits of the revised scale of pay or of the selection grade under the government memorandum dated 2-6-1989 and 16-5-1990, and therefore, the majority judgment of  the  High Court must  be  held  to  be  contrary to  the  aforesaid provisions  of  the  Recruitment  Rules,  consequently  cannot  be sustained.  The  initial  letter  of  appointment  dated  6-12-1979 pursuance  to  which  respondent  Rakesh  Kumar  joined  as  an Assistant Engineer on an ad hoc basis in 1980 was also placed before us. The said appointment letter unequivocally indicates that the offer of  appointment  as  Assistant  Engineer was  on  ad  hoc  basis  and clauses 1 to 4 of the said letter further provides that the appointment will be on an ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months from the date of joining and the salary was a fixed salary of Rs.400 p.m. in the scale of Rs.400 to Rs.1100 and the services were liable to be terminated without any notice and at any time without assigning any reason and that the appointment will not enable the appointee any seniority or any other benefit under the Service Rules for the time being in force and will not count towards increment in the time scale. In view of the aforesaid stipulations in the offer of appointment itself we really fail to understand as to how the aforesaid period of service rendered on ad  hoc  basis  can  be  held  to  be  service  on  regular  basis.  The conclusion of  the  High Court  is  contrary to  the  very terms and conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. The regular letter of appointment dated 29-1-1982 in favour of Rakesh Kumar was also produced before us and that letter indicates that the respondent Rakesh Kumar along with others had applied to the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission for being appointed as an Assistant Engineer and the Service Commission after selecting the number of persons prepared a list and appointment letters were issued by the Government from the said list on the basis of the merit position of different candidates. Thus the appointment of  respondent  Rakesh Kumar was a fresh appointment in accordance with the statutory rules after the Public Service  Commission  adjudged  their  suitability  and  the  regular service of the respondent Rakesh Kumar must be counted from the date he joined the post pursuant to the offer of appointment dated 29-1-1982 and the prior service rendered by him on ad hoc basis cannot be held to be regular service nor can it be tagged on to the later service for earning the benefit under the government circular dated 2-6-1989 as well as the clarificatory circular dated 16-5-1990. The  conclusion  of  the  majority  judgment  of  the  High  Court, therefore, is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained.”

12. In State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others [(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.

......................J.     [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.     [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, February 12, 2009.