DAULATMAL RAJPAL Vs. MP. ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER at the relevant time was holding the post of Executive Engineer under the Superintending Engineer (STRE), M.P. Electricity Board, Gwalior. When he was denied the higher pay scale in accordance with the policies and circulars of the Board as contained in Annexure P-4 dated 19.7.1990. Being aggrieved by the action of Board in not granting him higher pay scale on the post of Sub-Engineer, petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1994. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1979 and, thereafter, Executive Engineer in the year 1994 in which post he was working when the petition was filed. According to the petitioner, as per the circular Annexure P-4, petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of next higher pay scale on the post of Executive Engineer, after completing 9 years service. Accordingly, his case was to be considered but benefit of higher pay scale is denied to the petitioner on the basis of certain adverse CR reported in the CR for the years 1993-1994. Vide communication dated 29.12.1994 (Annexure P-4) certain adverse entries in CR of the petitioner for the period from 9.9.1993 to 5.3.1994 was communicated. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to this and subsequent to that petitioner has received very good CR when an adverse CR was communicated only because of malafide intention of respondent No. 5 inter alia contending that even if for a particular period, there was some adverse report in the CR of that petitioner.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties, it is seen from the records that petitioner's case for grant of next higher pay scale was considered by the appropriate screening Committee and the Committee has not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. Shri R. A. Roman, learned Senior Advocate had argued that for granting to next higher scale, the criteria as laid down for consideration of the case for promotion of an employee to the next higher pay scale is not applicable. It is emphasised by Shri Roman that grant of next pay is automatic and for this the only requirement is that the employee should have been stagnated in a post without any promotion for 9, 1 8 and 25 years as the case may be. Accordingly, the question is as to whether the aforesaid contention of Shri R.A. Roman, learned senior counsel is correct or not. The aforesaid question has already been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 1993 MP. Electricity Board v. Vidhya Bhushan Saxena vide order dated 13.12.1992. In the aforesaid case, similar provisions as contained in circular Annexure P-4 pertaining to grant of higher pay scale was considered by the Supreme Court and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that even for the purpose of grant of next higher pay scale, Board can follow the criteria prescribed for promoting a person to the next higher post in accordance with the rules. In the case of Vidhya Bhushan Saxena, a circular dated 6.5.1982 issued in the matter of higher pay scale was considered and it has been observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case as under. Since there were not many opportunities for promotion and with a view to obviate stagnation, the promotion and with a view to obviate stagnation, the Board issued on 6.5.1982 an Order which reads as under :