PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. versus GURMAIL SINGH

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. versus GURMAIL SINGH

Respondent opted for UDC as induction post, precluding entitlement to revised LDC scale per Board policy. However, since respondent received less pay than his juniors in the same cadre, the Court exercised Article 142 powers to direct stepping up in terms of Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a), ensuring respondent is placed at the same scale from the same day as the employee next below him in LDC, without treating his induction both as LDC and UDC.

Parties
Appellant: Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.; Respondent: Gurmail Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Stepping Up of Pay, Time Bound Promotion Scheme, Option for Induction Post, Pay Scale Anomaly, Equality Under Article 14, Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)
Service Law Constitutional Law Stepping Up of Pay Time Bound Promotion Scheme Option for Induction Post Pay Scale Anomaly Equality Under Article 14 Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.

Appellant

Gurmail Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is entitled to stepping up of pay under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a) when his juniors receive higher pay due to opting for another induction post or scheme
  2. 2 Whether Board's refusal to grant revised LDC scale on account of respondent's option for UDC as induction post is legally valid
  3. 3 Applicability of Article 14 in cases of pay anomalies resulting from legal policy decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent opted for UDC as induction post, precluding entitlement to revised LDC scale per Board policy. However, since respondent received less pay than his juniors in the same cadre, the Court exercised Article 142 powers to direct stepping up in terms of Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a), ensuring respondent is placed at the same scale from the same day as the employee next below him in LDC, without treating his induction both as LDC and UDC.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Respondent to be put at same scale of pay from same day as employee next below him in LDC
  • Respondent not entitled to treat induction post as both LDC and UDC