http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2898 of 2008

PETITIONER: Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors

RESPONDENT: Gurmail Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/04/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2898                 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5223 of 2004) With Civil Appeal No.            _____  of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8130 of 2004)

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.      Leave granted. 2.      These two appeals, involving similar questions of fact of law, were  taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common  judgment. 3.      The factual matrix of the matter, however, would be noticed from the  case of Gurmail Singh.   Appellant Board is constituted and incorporated under the Electricity  (Supply) Act, 1948.  It is entitled to frame regulations incorporating terms  and conditions of service of its employees in terms of Section 79 (c) of the  Act.  The regulations so framed are known as Punjab State Electricity Board  Ministerial Services (Class III) Regulations, 1985. 4.      Respondent herein was appointed as a Steno-Typist on or about  28.8.1976.  There existed a common cadre of the Steno-Typist and Lower  Division Clerk.  He was appointed on a scale of pay of Rs.110-250 which  was revised to Rs.400-600 w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.   On the said post, he was placed on a scale of pay of Rs.1200-2200/-.   A scheme for grant of time bound promotion to a higher scale of pay  was formulated by the Board wherefor a circular bearing No.17/90 was  issued by its Finance Department on 23.4.1990.  In terms of the said scheme,  promotional scale was to be given to the employees upon completion of 9/16  years of regular service.  The revision in the scale of pay of LDCs was  directed by an order dated 3.10.1990 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.  The said revision of  scale of pay, however, was to be granted on the basis of total number of  years of service as LDC in the said cadre.  The same was, however,  implemented in respect of three categories of employees, namely, who have  not been granted any promotion despite completion of minimum 10 years of  service as LDC and Senior Clerk or five years of service as LDC and  remaining of the LDCs not falling in the first two categories.  The ratio for  grant of the said promotional scale was fixed at 40:40:20 respectively.   Material part of the said circular is as under : "In continuation to this officer order  Nol.129/Fin/PRC-1988 dated 11.11.1988, No.147/  Fin/PRC-1988 dated 21.03.89, No.168/Fin/PRC- 1988 dated 15.6.89, No.169/Fin/PRC-1989 dated  26.6.89, No.181/Fin/PRC-1988 dated 20.10.89,  No.189 Fin/PRC-1988 dated 19.01.1990, No.190  Fin/PRC-1988 dated 23.01.1990,  No.211

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Fin/PRC-1988 dated 4.7.1990 and office order  No.271 Fin/PRC-1988 dated 13.8.1990, the Punjab  State Electricity Board is pleased to further revise  the scales of pay of the following categories of  employees w.e.f  01.01.1986 as under : XXX                     XXX                     XXX 3.      The Punjab State Electricity Board has also  decided that (i) \005 (ii) For UDCs joining PSEB, as  a result of either through direct recruitment or by  promotion from amongst LDCs after passing the  Departmental Accounts Examination, the date of  joining as UDC will be taken as the date of first  induction in the PSEB for the purpose of grant of  9/16 years time bound scales."

5.      On or about 7.10.1992, the Board in continuation of Finance Circular  No.58/90 dated 3.10.1990 issued a memo on or about 7.10.1992 whereby  and whereunder it was clarified that in the list of LDCs circulated by the  Board, the names of LDCs who had been promoted as UDCs included, then  those UDCs would not be given the revised scale of LDCs stating : "In accordance with the above instructions, a list  of employees to whom scale of Junior Assistant  (1500-2640) is payable w.e.f. 01.01.1988 has been  prepared by this office and is being sent to your  office for further action.  While preparing this list,  LDCs who have been promoted upto 31.12.87  their names have not been included in this list.   Still if any employees has been promoted to higher  post (UDC/Stenographer Divisional Accountant,  Revenue Accountant) or have been appointed by  direct recruitment by selection by the Board and  have joined that post or the service or any  employees have been terminated or have left the  Board or has died but his name has been included  in the list, this scale will not be given to those  employees.  Names and serial No. of all such  employees be informed to this office.         While preparing the list due care has been  taken to include names of all LDCs who were  posted, still if name of any LDC has not been  included in the list be informed to this office along  with his serial number, date of birth and date of  joining the Board.  LDC/Steno-typist who have  forgone promotion as UDC, are not entitled to this  scale.         Those steno-typists who have opted for  cadre of stenographer, they are not entitled to this  scale and names of such employees and their serial  number in the list be informed.         While fixing of these employees in this  revised scale of 1500-2640 from 01.01.88,  instructions issued by the Board from time to time  be kept in view.         It is also informed that above scale granted  to these LDCs can be reviewed by the Board."

6.      Another circular was issued by the Board on or about 18.7.1994  directing that those LDCs who are promoted as UDCs would not be given  any option to decide UDC/LDC as their induction post, but some relaxation  may be given while considering individual cases who had been promoted  after 1.1.1986 in the following terms : "Thereafter Union of Employees submitted  demands that those qualified Lower Division

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Clerks who have been promoted as Upper Division  Clerks after 01.01.1986 be also given opportunity  to exercise option as he been given to Lower  Division Clerks who were promoted before  01.01.86.         The Board has considered the entire case  and has decided that they cannot be given  opportunity to exercise such option because Lower  Division Clerks have already accepted three pay  scales structure on the pattern of Punjab  Government and they were working as Lower  Division Clerks on 01.01.86 and not as Upper  Division Clerks.  However, keeping in view the  hardship to the employees, it has been decided that  case of Lower Division Clerks promoted as Upper  Division Clerks after 01.01.86 on passing  departmental examination will not be considered  on merits.         All such cases will be considered by the  competent official by giving relaxation in rules and  the case will be referred with self-contained  proposal to the Secretary Finance Department,  Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala along with  service record of the employee and financial  burden involved through Head of the Department.         It is submitted that all concerned employees  be informed about this decision of the Board so  that employees may send their case for  consideration by the competent official.  Such  cases be disclosed within four months by the  employees so that proper decision be taken in the  case."

7.      Respondent made a representation to the Board.  He, therein, did not  state that his induction post should be treated as LDC.  He, in fact, preferred  UDC as his induction post by a letter dated 8.7.1995.  In terms of the said  letter, 1.1.1986 was fixed as the cut off date.  A decision was taken in favour  of the employees.  However, they were required to make their representation  within the timeframe fixed thereunder.  On or about 15.11.1994, the  respondent filed a representation stating : "It is respectfully submitted that the Director  Personnel PSEB Patiala Vide memo  No.51385/51785/ECM-161 dated 7.10.92 granted  scale of 1500-2640 w.e.f. 01.01.88 to LDCs having  seniority No.3121 to 3651 and my name was at  serial No.270 (Seniority No.3461) in this list.   However, I was not released this scale because of  promotion as UDC from 05.07.86, as such LDCs  who are junior to me and having seniority No.3462  to 3651 have been granted pay scale of Rs.1500- 2640 from 01.01.88 i.e. higher scale than me and  were having more basic pay than me.  After that  the Board has granted scale of Rs.1640-2925 to the  LDCs on completion of 16 years of service and  LDCs junior to me are getting this scale and more  salary than me.         Because of these pay anomalies, the Board  has granted opportunity to the LDCs promoted as  UDC before 01.01.1986 to exercise option to keep  their induction post as LDC or UDC.  Now  through letter under reference, the Board has  decided not to grant such option to the LDC  promoted as UDC after 01.01.1986 but it was  decided that hardship caused to these employees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

will be considered on merits.         It is, therefore, submitted that hardship  caused to me by drawing higher pay scale and my  basic pay by employees junior to me be removed  and I be granted pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f.  01.01.88 and pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 on  completion of 16 years service and my salary be  fixed accordingly because I have been bearing this  hardship for the last 6/7 years.  Kindly remove this  hardship at an early date."

8.      Another Finance Circular was issued on 31.10.1995 in terms whereof,  it was clarified that for giving the benefit of time bound promotional scheme  after 9/16/23 years of regular service, the induction post is to be treated as  under : "After considering this case and as per scheme  made by the Board vide office order  No.197/Fin/PRC-988 dated 23.4.1990, it is  clarified specially that one employee is entitled for  getting benefits of one induction post only during  his whole service.  On the points raised by some  officers the clarification is being given as per  following : I.      Those Divisional Accountants who are  getting 8 years proficiency step up and 9 years first time  bound promotional scale are covered within 25% quota  as SAS Accountant and thereafter they pass SAS Part-II  examination, in such case which post is to be considered  as their induction post and from which date? Those employees who have taken benefit of  one induction post for 9 years promotional  benefit, the said post would be considered as  his induction post. II.     Those Divisional Accountants who after  taking benefit of 9 years first time bound promotional  scale and thereafter clear the four papers of SAS Part-II  and SA Accountant (in qualified quota) and get  promotion, whether they should again be considered as  SA Accountant and be given said induction post after  9/16 years first and second promotional scale or their  post of Divisional Accountant be considered as induction  post for grant of time bound promotional scale after 16  years? In such cases also the benefits of induction  post of Divisional Accountant are entitled  for. III.    Those Junior Scale Stenographers who are  posted/promoted to the post of Steno-typist  after passing Stenography test, is their post  be considered as their induction post?         In such cases the junior scale stenographer is  to be considered as induction post subject to  the condition that the concerned employee  has not taken benefit of 9/16 years time  bound promotional scale of steno-typist."

9.      Yet again, the respondent by a letter dated 29.1.1996 opted for UDC  as his induction post, stating : "With respect it is requested that I joined as Upper  Division Clerk on 5.7.1986 and in this way I  completed 9 years of my service as Upper Division  Clerk on 4.7.1995.  Therefore, I be given 9 years  time bound scale of Upper Division Clerk from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

5.7.1995 and my salary be also settled according to  that."

10.     Respondent, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute.  The Board was  directed to consider his representation pursuant whereto and in furtherance  thereof by an order dated 30.10.2002, representation of the respondent was  rejected, inter alia, on the premise that : (i)     He had not completed 10 years of service as LDC and, thus, did not  fall in the upper ratio of 40% of LDCs; (ii)    He had already been promoted w.e.f. 5.7.1986;  (iii)   He had already taken 9 years time on promotional scale keeping  his induction post as UDC on 8.7.1995; and (iv)    By reason of FC No.34/95 he was entitled to the benefit of revision  of scale of pay only at one induction level. 11.     The writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the legality and/or  validity of the said order has been allowed by reason of the impugned  judgment. 12.     Mr. Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in  support of the appeal, inter alia, would submit : (i)     The High Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take  into consideration that the Board, in exercise of its regulation making  power, was entitled not only to make regulations but also to issue  circulars from time to time.  As the validity of the circular letters  issued by the Board had not been questioned, the impugned judgment  is wholly unsustainable. (ii)    The High Court failed to consider the purport of the circulars and in  any event having not quashed any of them was not correct in granting  the reliefs in favour of the respondents herein. 13.     Ms. Rani Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other  hand, would submit that  i)      Other employees having been granted the benefit of requisite option,  there was absolutely no reason why the respondent should be  discriminated against; ii)     As the Punjab High Court, in a similar set of facts had granted relief  to the employees which having been upheld by this Court, there is no  reason as to why the respondent should have been treated differently;   iii)    As despite the aforementioned judgment of the High Court, a further  option was denied to the respondent, the High Court with a view to  avoid anomaly was right in passing the impugned judgment;   (iv)    In any event, the benefit of circular letter dated 48/92 having been  granted to a large number of employees and, in fact, in the case of  Gurjant Singh, he having been allowed to opt both LCD as also UDC  as induction posts, there is no reason as to why the similar benefit  should not be granted to the respondent. 14.     Mr. Gogia, learned counsel for the respondent in the connected  matter, would submit that the case of the respondent stands on identical  footing with that of Gurjant Singh who was junior to him and, thus, it would  lead to an anomalous situation that he shall draw a higher salary than the  respondent.   15.     Indisputably, the Board being a statutory authority was entitled to  frame its own regulations.  Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948  empowers the Board to appoint Secretary as also such other officers and  employees as may be required to enable it to carryout its functions under the  Act.  Section 79 of the Act provides for a regulation making power.  Clause  (c) of Section 79 thereof empowers the Board to make regulation with  regard to the duties of officers and other employees as also their salaries,  allowances and other conditions of service.  It is not in dispute that, in  exercise of the said power, the Board has made 1985 Regulations,  Regulations 13 whereof reads as under : "PAY OF MEMBERS OF SERVICE 13.     Members of the service shall be entitled to  such scales to pay as may be sanctioned by the  Board from time to time.  The scales of pay at  present in force in respect of specified posts are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

given in Appendix-’A’."

16.     We may also notice the relevant portion of Appendix A to have a  broad idea as regards the different scales of pay payable to the UDCs and  LDCs : "6.     Upper Division  Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2000-50-2200         Clerk   (With initial start of Rs.1350/-) 7.      Lower Division  i)      Rs.950-25-1200-30-1560-40-1800         Clerk           (With initial start of Rs.1000/-)         ii)     Rs.1500-2600 (To 40% after 10 years   of service         iii)    Rs.1640-2925 (Second time bound  scale after 16 years of service)"

       The validity of the provisions of the said regulations is not in  question.  The power of the Board to issue circulars from time to time in  support of the matters which are not governed by the statute or statutory  regulations is also not in dispute.  The Board, as noticed hereinbefore, had  been issuing such regulations from time to time.  It is now well settled that  the Board, even in absence of any express provision of statute, may issue  such circular.  17.     In Meghalaya State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Jagadindra Arjun  [(2001) 6 SCC 446, it was held : "11. As per Section 79(c), MSEB may frame  regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of  the Act and the Rules providing for the duties of  officers and other employees of the Board and  their salary, allowances and other conditions of  service. It is to be stated that this is an enabling  provision. MSEB may frame regulations as  provided in Section 79(c) of the Act, but in the  absence of any regulations, MSEB can lay down  service conditions by administrative  order/instructions. Section 15 of the Act empowers  the Board to appoint its employees as may be  required to enable MSEB to carry out its functions  under the Act except the Secretary who is to be  appointed with previous approval of the State  Government. The power to lay down service  conditions by regulations is expressly conferred  upon MSEB, so it has power to prescribe service  conditions. Section 78-A also provides that except  on question of policy for which the State  Government has issued directions, the Board is  entitled to discharge its functions prescribed under  the Act which would include appointment of staff  to enable it to carry out its functions and also lay  down service conditions. Hence, if there are no  rules or regulations pertaining to service conditions  of its employees, the same could be prescribed by  administrative order and such power of the  employer which is a statutory corporation would  be implied."

18.     Yet again in Sohan Singh Sodhi v. Punjab State Electricity Board  [(2007) 5 SCC 528), M.P. Electricity Board (Supra) was noticed.  It was  stated : "10. The power of the State Electricity Board to  issue circulars in exercise of its powers under  Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948  is not in dispute. It has the power to frame  regulations. If it can frame regulations, in absence  of any regulations, issuance of executive orders is  permissible in law. The power of framing  regulations prescribing conditions of service of its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

employees appointed by the Board in terms of  Section 15 of the Act cannot be disputed. Thus, in  absence of any rules or regulations governing the  service conditions of its employees, issuance of  administrative order is permissible in law vide  Meghalaya SEB v. Jagadindra Arjun."

       Power of the Board to issue circulars, therefore, was not in dispute.   The validity of the said circular letters was not in question. 19.     It is true that some anomaly stares on the face of the records.  It  furthermore appears that a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana  High Court in PSEB & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar [RSA No.819 of 1989  judgment dated 19th March, 1999] opined that the employees concerned  were entitled to the benefit of the three scales proportionately 20:40:40 with  effect from 1.1.1986.         However, in that case, the employee joined the service on 26.8.1975.   He on 7.7.1983 was working as UDC but the Board was treating him as  LDC.  The benefit of 16 years’ service from the date of joining as LDC was  granted to him.  It was in the aforementioned situation, the employee therein  was being treated as a Lower Division Clerk.         The special leave petition thereagainst has been dismissed by a Bench  of this Court by an order dated 31.3.2000 in Punjab State Electricity Board  & Ors. v. Supinder Kumar Modgil [SLP (C)___/2000 (CC No.2119/2000)]. 20.     Our attention has further been drawn to a decision of another learned  Single Judge of the High Court in Chanan Singh v. Punjab State Electricity  Board, Patiala RSA No.337 of 1988 wherein, inter alia, it was held : "A senior person who has proved his merit vis-‘- vis the others in the same cadre would be placed in  the lower scale of pay while the juniors who were  either not qualified or had been found unsuitable  for promotion would be placed in higher scale of  pay.  Such a course of action would be arbitrary,  unfair and would even amount to denial of equality  of opportunity in promotion.  I am reluctant to  accept any interpretation of the order of revision of  pay scales which would deny the benefit of higher  scale to a senior and result in grant of a higher  scale to a junior.  Mr. Goyal points out that the  grant of a higher scale to the extent of 50% of the  posts of Head Office Assistants is not promotion.   Even if it is assumed to be so, the getting of higher  scale carries with it the pecuniary benefits.  A  senior person is entitled to all those benefits which  a junior in the cadre is getting.  The pay of a  senior, in this case, cannot be less than that of his  junior."

21.     It is, however, not denied or disputed that representations had been  received from various employees in response to the Finance Circular dated  18.7.1994 opting for retaining the post of LDC as induction post, vis-‘-vis  the hardship which would be faced by them.  Each such representation had  been considered on its own merits. 22.     We have also noticed hereinbefore that another Finance circular was  issued in 1992 with a view to remove the anomaly between scales of pay of  LDC and UDC.  The option granted, however, was in respect of those who  had been promoted before 1.1.1986. 23.     No such option was granted for those who had been promoted after  1.1.1986.  It may seem unfortunate but that was the legal position.  We  would, however, assume that despite absence of such a circular, the  employees could give an option on their own.  Such an option could be  exercised even while making a representation for the purpose of  consideration of the Board on the ground of hardship.  Unfortunately, the  respondent herein thought it fit to opt for the post of UDC as his induction  post. Our attention although has been drawn to the case of Gurjant Singh, it  is evident, that in terms of Finance Circular No.34/95 dated 31.10.1995, an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

employee was entitled to get the benefit of one induction post only during  his entire service.  In this behalf, Regulation 13 is also significant in the  sense that it was for the Board to fix scales of pay to which we have  adverted to hereinbefore. 24.     Respondent, however, it will bear repetition to state, by his letter  dated 29.1.1996 opted for 9 years’ time bound scale of Upper Division Clerk  from 9.7.1995 to which we have adverted to heretobefore.         An employee given the option to opt for one or the other induction  post or one or the other scheme is supposed to know his right or benefit.  An  employee cannot be permitted to opt for one or the other scheme again and  again.  Schemes are framed for the benefit of the employees ordinarily as a  one time measure.  If by reason of a wrong option, an employee suffers, he  himself is to be blamed therefor and not the employer. 25.     In State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kuldip Singh & Anr. [(2002) 5 SCC  756], the power of the Board to issue circulars was reiterated, stating : "9. From the contents of the two circulars, it is  manifest that an employee in order to be eligible to  get the selection grade pay has to complete 15  years’ of service and he is not to be given such  scale of pay before he fulfils the said eligibility  criteria. It follows as a consequence that no  employee can claim selection grade pay before  completing 15 years of service on any ground  including the ground that an employee junior to  him has already been given such grade of pay. The  position is further clarified in the circular issued in  May 1987 wherein it is provided that in the event  of a junior employee getting the selection grade  pay earlier, the post in the said grade may be kept  vacant for the senior employee who may be given  the benefit of the pay prescribed for the selection  grade pay only after he completes 15 years of  service. The interest of the senior employee in  such cases is safeguarded by making the provision  that the inter se seniority between the two  employees will remain undisturbed despite the  junior employee getting the selection grade pay  earlier than the senior employee. 10. In view of the position communicated in the  circulars the claim of an employee for a selection  grade post was to be dealt with only in accordance  with the provisions in the circular. The reasons  stated in the judgment/order of the High Court that  the respondents were entitled to the higher grade  pay with effect from 1-1-1978 as employees junior  to them were granted such pay by that date is  extraneous and irrelevant for the purpose. The  High Court overlooked the provisions in the  circulars while directing the appellants herein to  grant selection grade pay to the respondents before  they completed 15 years of service. The High  Court was clearly in error in issuing a writ of  mandamus apparently against the government  circulars which were binding on the parties. The  judgment/order passed by the High Court is,  therefore, unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is  allowed, the judgment/order is set aside and the  writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.  It is made clear that if the respondents have  already drawn any amount in pursuance of the  judgment/order of the High Court, the same will  not be recovered from them."

26.             Here also the High Court had failed to take note of the effect  and purport of the said circular.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

       Ordinarily, the power of judicial review should not be exercised in a  case of this nature.         Furthermore, the High Court failed to take into consideration, the  legal principle that Article 14 being a positive concept, constitutional  scheme of equality cannot be applied in illegality.   27.     The High Court, therefore, should have considered the effect of the  circulars vis-‘-vis validity or legality thereof.  The matter might have been  different if the said circulars were issued without jurisdiction or otherwise  found to be unconstitutional or ultra vires the provisions of Electricity  (Supply) Act.   28.     Having, however, held so, the question which arises is whether it is a  fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article  136 of the Constitution of India.  We think we should not.  Respondent is a  well-qualified person.  He has passed the departmental examination.  He is  in service for more than 32 years.  He was promoted to the post of Upper  Division Clerk as far back as on 5.7.1986.  He might have made a mistake in  giving a wrong option but it has not been denied or disputed that in the  implementation of the policy decision of the Board dated 3.10.1990,  respondent had been receiving an amount which is far less than the one  which was being received by his juniors.   In the case of Gurdeep Singh, we have seen that whereas the  representation of his juniors had been allowed, his representation had been  rejected.  This may meet the requirements of law but we, having regard to  our extra-ordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, may  also pass some order which would meet the ends of justice.  We say so not  on ipse dixit but on the premise that even in terms of Fundamental Rules  22(1)(a), there exists a provision for stepping up of pay.  The said principle  would be applicable when a junior to a senior officer belonging to the same  category and the post from which they have been promoted and in the  promoted cadre, the junior officer on being promoted later than the senior,  gets a higher pay.   Technically the same may or may not be permissible but we may  notice that this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. P. Jagdish & Ors. [(1997) 3  SCC 177] applied the same principle, stating : "This being the principle of stepping up contained  in the Fundamental Rules and admittedly the  respondents being senior to several other Senior  Clerks and the respondents having been promoted  earlier than many of their juniors who were  promoted later to the post of Head Clerks, the  principle of stepping up should be made applicable  to the respondents with effect from the date their  juniors in the erstwhile cadre of Senior Clerks get  promoted to the cadre of Head Clerks and their pay  was fixed at a higher slab than that of the  respondents. The stepping up should be done in  such a way that the anamoly of juniors getting  higher salary than the seniors in the promoted  category of Head Clerk would be removed and the  pay of the seniors like the respondents would be  stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for  their junior officer in the higher post of Head  Clerk. In fact the Tribunal by the impugned order  has directed to apply the principle of stepping up  and we see no infirmity with the same direction  subject to the aforesaid clarifications. This  principle of stepping up which we have upheld  would prevent violation of equal pay for equal  work but grant of consequential benefit of the  difference of salary would not be correct for the  reason that the respondents had not worked in the  post to which 35% [sic Rs.35 as] special pay was  attached in the lower cadre. But by reason of  promotion the promotee-juniors who worked on  the said posts, in fact, performed the hard duties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

and earned special pay. Directions to pay arrears  would be deleterious to inculcation of efficiency in  service. All persons who were indolent to share  higher responsibilities in lower posts, on  promotion would get accelerated arrears that  would be deleterious to efficiency of service."

29.     It is not a case where the junior has been getting a higher pay because  of his earlier officiation in the higher post by way of officiating promotion.   We may notice that in such an event, this Court in Union of India & Anr. v.  R. Swaminathan & Ors. [(1997) (7) SCC 690], opined : "2. The aggrieved employees have contended with  some justification that local officiating promotions  within a Circle have resulted in their being  deprived of a chance to officiate in the higher post,  if such chance of officiation arises in a different  Circle. They have submitted that since there is all- India seniority for regular promotions, this all- India seniority must prevail even while making  local officiating appointments within any Circle.  The question is basically of administrative  exigency and the difficulty that the administration  may face if even short-term vacancies have to be  filled on the basis of all-India seniority by calling a  person who may be stationed in a different Circle  in a region remote from the region where the  vacancy arises, and that too for a short duration.  This is essentially a matter of administrative  policy. But the only justification for local  promotions is their short duration. If such vacancy  is of a long duration there is no administrative  reason for not following the all-India seniority.  Most of the grievances of the employees will be  met if proper norms are laid down for making local  officiating promotions. One thing, however, is  clear. Neither the seniority nor the regular  promotion of these employees is affected by such  officiating local arrangements. The employees who  have not officiated in the higher post earlier,  however, will not get the benefit of the proviso to  Fundamental Rule 22."

30.     Although the order of the Board cannot be said to be wholly illegal  and without jurisdiction warranting interference at the hands of the High  Court but, we are of the opinion that the respondents should be put at the  same scale of pay from the same day which was being paid to the employees  who was next below him in the post of LDC.  We would, however, clarify  that the respondent shall not be entitled to treat his induction post both as  LDC and UDC.  The amount payable to the respondent in terms of these  observations may be recalculated within a period six weeks.   31.     To the aforementioned extent, the appeals are allowed.  In the facts  and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.