http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SECY. - CUM- CHIEF ENGINEER, CHANDIGARH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HARI OM SHARMA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/04/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K.VENKATASWAMI, S. RAJENDRA BABU.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.      This appeal  is directed  against  the  judgment  dated 14.12.93 passed  by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, ’the Tribunal’). 2.   The dispute  relates to  the promotion  on the posts of Junior Engineer-  I. Admittedly,  promotion on  the posts of Junior  Engineer-   I   are   made   from   amongst   junior Engineers/S.S.Os./meter Inspectors.  Since there  were three different feeder  posts from  which promotions  were  to  be made, the  appellant themselves fixed the respective quotas. 34 percent  of the  posts were  to be  filled up  by  direct recruitment  from  the  open  market  from  amongst  diploma holders. 33  per cent  of the  posts were to be filled up by diploma holders  linemen already working with the appellant. Another 33  per cent  of the posts were to be filled up from amongst non-diploma  holders linemen/Meter  Readers who  had put in 10 years of service. 3.   In order  to make  promotions, an  integrated seniority list of  persons working in three categories of feeder posts was drawn  up and  it was  from  this  seniority  list  that promotions were made and the quota system was not adhered to view  of   the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Punjab  State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Ravinder Kumar, Sharma & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 617. It is also stated by the appellant that 33 per cent  quota, meant  for non-diploma holders, was quashed by this Court by its Judgment dated 30th of January, 1987 in Punjab State  Electricity Board Sukhdev Raj Sharma & Ors. JT 1987(1)  SC  333.  It  was  after  this  Judgment  that  the recruitment rules were modified and it was provided that the posts of  Junior Engineer-I  would be  file up,  not on  the basis of  quota, but  on the  basis of integrated seniority- cum-merit. 4.   The respondent  was promoted  as Junior  Engineer-I  in 1990 and has been continuing on that post without being paid salary for  that post  or without  being promoted on regular basis.  it   was  in  this  situation  that  the  respondent approached the  Tribunal and  the Tribunal,  as pointed  out earlier, allowed  the claim petition with the direction that the respondent  shall be  paid salary for the post of Junior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Engineer-I and  shall also  be considered  for promotion  on regular basis  on the  basis of  quota fixed for non-diploma holders with 10 years of service. Admittedly, the respondent is the seniormost person in the cadre of non-diploma holders and has also put in 10 years of service. 5.   The decision in Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Ravinder  Kumar Sharma  & Ors.  (supra) was overruled by this Court  in T. Murugesan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1993)  2 SCC  340. It  was on  this decision  that the Tribunal placed reliance and came to the conclusion that the promotions had  still to be made on the basis of quota fixed for three  different feeder  categories and not on the basis of integrated  seniority particularly  as the classification on the  basis of  "educational qualification" was held to be valid by this Court. 6.   Having regard  to these  facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal  was  fully  justified  in  ordering  that  the respondent shall  be promoted  on the basis of "quota" fixed for non-diploma  holders with 10 years of service and not on the basis  of integrated  seniority. The  Tribunal was  also justified on  ordering payment  of salary  to the respondent for the  post of  Junior Engineer-I   with  effect from 1990 when he  was made  to work on that post. It is true that the respondent,  to   begin  with,   was  promoted  in  stop-gap arrangement as  Junior Engineer-I  but that  by itself would make no  difference to his claim of salary for that post. If a person  is put  to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he  is normally entitled to salary of that post. The  Tribunal has noticed that the respondent has been working on  the post  of Junior  Engineer-I   since 1990 and promotion for  such a  long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop-gap arrangement. 7.   Learned counsel  for the  appellant has placed reliance on Shreedaran Chandra Ghosh vs. State of Assam & Ors. (1996) 10 SCC  567, as  also on  State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma & Ors., JT  1993  (3)  SC  740,  to  contend  that  since  the respondent  was   promoted  on   the   basis   of   stop-gap arrangement, he  could not  claim promotion  as a  matter of right nor  could be  claim salary  for the  post  of  Junior Engineer-I as  he was  given only current duty charge of the post. Both  the contentions cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has already held that the respondent having been promoted as Junior  Engineer-I,  though  in  stop-gap  arrangement,  was continued on  that post, and therefore, he has a right to be considered for regular promotion. Having regard to the facts of this  case,  there  is  no  reason  to  differ  with  the Tribunal. 8.   Learned counsel  for the appellant attempted to contend that  when   the  respondent   was  promoted   in   stop-gap arrangement  as   Junior  Engineer-I,   he  had   given   an undertaking to  the appellant  that on the basis of stop-gap arrangement, he  would not  claim promotion  as of right nor would he  claim any  benefit pertaining  to that  post.  The argument, to  say the least, is preposterous. Apart from the fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot  be   permitted  to   raise  such  an  argument,  the undertaking which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties  cannot be enforced at law. The respondent being an employee  of the  appellant had  to break  his period  of stagnation although,  as we  have found  earlier, he was the only person  amongst the  non-diploma holders  available for promotion  to   the  post  of  Junior  Engineer-I  and  was, therefore, likely  to be considered for promotion in his own right. An  agreement that  if a  person is  promoted to  the higher post  or put  to officiate  on that  post or,  as  in

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

instant case, a stop-gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher  post, he  would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy  . it  would, therefore,  be unenforceable  in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act. 9.   For the  reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed without any order as to costs.