In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed the criteria for awarding the Selection Grade to employees, emphasizing that the entitlement should be based on the sanctioned cadre strength rather than the actual number of occupied posts. This decision provides clarity on the interpretation of service rules concerning promotions and pay scales within public sector organizations.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs in this case were employed in various branches of the Thermal Power House under the Haryana State Electricity Board (H.S.E.B.). Initially designated as Thermal Supervisors and Thermal Operators, their roles were redefined as Junior Engineers in their respective specializations on February 9, 1981. This re-designation came with a revised pay scale, retroactively effective from April 1, 1979.
The core of the dispute revolved around the total sanctioned posts for the cadre at the Faridabad and Panipat units, which stood at 430. According to the plaintiffs, 20% of these sanctioned posts—amounting to 86 positions—should be eligible for the Selection Grade. However, the H.S.E.B. had released the Selection Grade to only 18 Junior Engineers who were formerly Thermal Supervisors or Thermal Operators.
Legal Proceedings and Contentions
Feeling aggrieved by the board's decision, the plaintiffs sought legal redress, filing a suit for a permanent injunction against the H.S.E.B. They sought a declaration affirming their entitlement to the Selection Grade as Junior Engineers effective from April 1, 1979, and requested directives for the board to release the corresponding benefits.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that they were entitled to the Selection Grade based on their seniority. This decision was subsequently upheld by the First Appellate Court. Dissatisfied with these outcomes, the H.S.E.B. escalated the matter to the High Court through a second appeal.
The H.S.E.B. contended that the actual strength of the Junior Engineer cadre was 264, not 430 as asserted by the plaintiffs. Based on this figure, they argued that only 20%—equating to 52 employees—were eligible for the Selection Grade, calculated based on the actual cadre strength and seniority. The board further argued that no Selection Grade was admissible following the revision of pay scales implemented after January 1, 1986.
Additionally, the H.S.E.B. highlighted that Thermal Operators had not been re-designated as Junior Engineers. Instead, they were placed in a different pay scale of 600-1100 and designated as Thermal Supervisor Grade-II, in line with the board's recruitment and promotion policy. This reclassification, according to the board, effectively reduced the cadre strength of Junior Engineers. Consequently, they maintained that the Selection Grade should be granted based on the actual number of occupied posts rather than the sanctioned cadre strength.
High Court's Analysis and Judgment
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court observed that the trial court had correctly determined that the plaintiffs' calculation regarding the existing strength of the Junior Engineers (Thermal) cadre was inaccurate, especially considering subsequent re-designations.
The court noted that the sanctioned strength of Junior Engineers was 384, comprising 188 Thermal Supervisors and 196 Thermal Operators. It was acknowledged that while Thermal Operators and Thermal Supervisors were re-designated as Junior Engineers, the Operators were not included in this reclassification.
The High Court concluded that the total posts eligible for the Selection Grade should be based on the sanctioned strength of 384. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim that the 46 Operators should be included in this strength was deemed invalid. Consequently, 20% of the sanctioned strength equated to 76 positions eligible for the Selection Grade. However, it was found that the Selection Grade had been released to only 18 employees.
The court emphasized that the sanctioned strength of Junior Engineers was established to be 384, based on the admissions made by the H.S.E.B. Thus, considering the total strength of the cadre, 20%—or 76 individuals—were entitled to the Selection Grade.
In its directive, the court mandated that the H.S.E.B. is obligated to consider the plaintiffs' cases for the grant of the Selection Grade, taking into account their service records, and to issue appropriate orders accordingly.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling underscores the principle that entitlements such as the Selection Grade should be determined based on the sanctioned cadre strength rather than the actual number of occupied posts. The judgment clarifies that organizational decisions regarding promotions and pay scales must align with the sanctioned structure, ensuring that employees are granted benefits based on the approved framework rather than fluctuating actual occupancies.
For public sector entities and their employees, this decision highlights the importance of adhering to the sanctioned cadre strength in matters of career progression and associated benefits. It serves as a precedent, ensuring that employees' entitlements are protected in accordance with the established sanctioned posts, providing a more stable and predictable framework for career advancement.
In essence, the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment reinforces the sanctity of the sanctioned cadre strength as the basis for determining entitlements like the Selection Grade, thereby promoting fairness and consistency in public sector employment practices.
WhatsApp Group Invite
Join WhatsApp Community
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.