A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision in Inderjit Singh Sodhi and Others v. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and Another addresses the limits of parity claims in service jurisprudence where promotional benefits are structured through distinct statutory channels for promotees and direct recruits.

The controversy arose from the claim of time bound promotional scales by Assistant Engineers who had entered the cadre by promotion from Junior Engineer posts under the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965. The appellants sought parity with juniors appointed through direct recruitment and granted higher scales under a later circular. The Supreme Court examined the architecture of the Regulations and two contemporaneous circulars issued in April and May 1990 providing for stagnation relief through time bound scales.

The judgment clarifies that promotional benefits must strictly flow from the source and mode of recruitment. It underscores that a legal fiction created for limited categories cannot be expanded to obliterate statutory distinctions. The Court reaffirmed that dismissal of Special Leave Petitions does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 and cannot override a reasoned judgment of the Supreme Court.

By relying on Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij, the Court harmonised service equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with regulatory classification based on qualifications and recruitment channels. The ruling reinforces doctrinal clarity on stagnation schemes, parity claims, and the non-extension of benefits contrary to express regulatory intent.

Keywords: Time bound promotional scale; Direct recruitment; Promotion; Parity; Service regulations; Stagnation relief.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation arose from competing interpretations of stagnation relief schemes framed by the Punjab State Electricity Board in the backdrop of structural disparities between direct recruits and promotees in engineering cadres. The Civil Regulations, 1965 created a bifurcated system for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, permitting entry through direct recruitment under Regulation 9 and promotion under Regulation 10. In order to mitigate stagnation, the Board introduced time bound promotional scales with effect from 1 January 1986 through circulars issued in April and May 1990. These circulars operated within the statutory framework and differentiated between categories of employees.

The appellants, diploma-holder engineers promoted from Junior Engineer posts, sought the benefit of higher scales granted to directly recruited Assistant Engineers who were junior to them in service. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the claim, but the Division Bench reversed the decision relying on subsequent Supreme Court precedent. The matter thus raised fundamental questions on the doctrine of equality, the scope of parity, and the permissible extent of legal fiction in service law.

The Supreme Court was required to reconcile earlier High Court decisions granting parity with its own authoritative pronouncement in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij, which had restricted the benefit of higher scales to direct recruits or those deemed as such under a narrow statutory fiction. The background thus reflects a tension between equitable considerations and strict regulatory compliance, a recurring theme in Indian service jurisprudence .

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were appointed as Junior Engineers in the early 1960s and were subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineers under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10 of the Civil Regulations. Their promotions were based on seniority and experience, without the educational qualifications mandated for direct recruitment. Two officers, Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg, though junior in service, were appointed as Assistant Engineers through direct recruitment under Regulation 7(a)(i) read with Regulation 9 after possessing requisite engineering qualifications.

In April 1990, the Board issued a circular providing time bound promotional scales on completion of nine and sixteen years of service, primarily aimed at employees suffering stagnation. In May 1990, another circular granted specific higher scales to directly recruited Assistant Engineers. The appellants claimed parity with the directly recruited juniors and sought similar time bound scales.

Their representations were rejected on the ground that they had been promoted within nine or sixteen years and were governed only by the first circular. The appellants approached the High Court, where conflicting decisions existed. While some promotees had been granted relief earlier, the Division Bench denied the benefit by applying the ratio of Krishan Kumar Vij. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court .

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether promotee Assistant Engineers are entitled to claim time bound promotional scales at par with directly recruited Assistant Engineers?

ii. Whether the Second Circular dated 24.05.1990 applies to promotee Assistant Engineers?

iii. Whether denial of parity violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

iv. Whether dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in similar cases creates binding precedent?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that once promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineer, the appellants formed part of a common class and could not be discriminated against in pay matters. Reliance was placed on the principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 16. It was argued that the appellants possessed the necessary qualifications for direct recruitment and that denial of higher scales was arbitrary.

The appellants also relied on earlier High Court judgments where similarly situated promotees were granted relief. It was contended that the Second Circular, read harmoniously with the First Circular, entitled them to time bound scales, particularly as stagnation relief. The appellants further argued that dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in earlier cases affirmed the High Court’s approach .

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that the appellants’ claim was misconceived as the regulatory scheme clearly differentiated between direct recruits and promotees. It was argued that the Second Circular expressly limited its application to directly recruited Assistant Engineers. Promotees were governed solely by the First Circular, which denied benefits where promotion occurred within nine years.

The respondents emphasized that the appellants never challenged the validity of the Second Circular and could not seek parity contrary to its express terms. Reliance was placed on Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij, which had conclusively settled the issue. It was also argued that dismissal of SLPs did not amount to affirmation of law .

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Regulation 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii), Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965
ii. Regulation 9 and Regulation 10, Civil Regulations
iii. Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Division Bench judgment. The Court examined the regulatory scheme and held that the appellants were promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) and thus governed by the First Circular alone. The Second Circular was specifically designed for directly recruited Assistant Engineers and created a limited legal fiction only for those promotees who possessed AMIE qualifications and were promoted against reserved quotas.

The Court rejected the parity argument, holding that equals must be treated equally but unequals cannot claim equality. The appellants’ admission that the juniors were direct recruits was decisive. The Court also clarified that earlier High Court decisions granting relief could not override the binding precedent in Krishan Kumar Vij. Dismissal of SLPs was held to be non-precedential, relying on Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala. The judgment reinforced the principle that stagnation schemes cannot be extended beyond their statutory contours .

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the case lies in the holding that time bound promotional scales are contingent upon the mode of entry and qualifications prescribed under statutory regulations. Promotee Assistant Engineers, who entered the cadre under Regulation 7(a)(ii) without fulfilling the criteria of direct recruitment, cannot claim parity with direct recruits governed by Regulation 7(a)(i). The Court affirmed that a legal fiction created by administrative circulars must be strictly construed and cannot be expanded to confer unintended benefits. Equality under Articles 14 and 16 operates within a lawful classification and does not mandate uniformity across distinct service channels. The dismissal of Special Leave Petitions does not constitute a declaration of law and cannot be treated as binding precedent under Article 141 .

b) OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed that stagnation relief schemes must balance equity with regulatory discipline. While acknowledging the hardship faced by promotees, the Court cautioned against judicial dilution of statutory frameworks. It noted that indiscriminate extension of benefits could violate constitutional equality by treating unequals as equals. The observations underline judicial restraint in service matters, emphasizing that policy corrections lie within administrative or legislative domains rather than adjudicatory expansion .

c) GUIDELINES 

i. Time bound promotional scales must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment regulations.
ii. Legal fictions in service rules are to be applied narrowly and only to categories expressly covered.
iii. Parity claims must be tested against qualifications and mode of recruitment.
iv. Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions does not amount to affirmation of law.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment provides doctrinal clarity on parity and stagnation relief in service law. It reinforces the primacy of statutory regulations over equitable considerations and cautions against judicial overreach in pay fixation matters. By reaffirming Krishan Kumar Vij, the Court restored consistency in service jurisprudence and underscored that equality operates within lawful classification. The ruling serves as an authoritative guide for interpreting time bound promotional schemes and their limits, particularly in public employment governed by detailed service regulations .

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr., [2010] 10 SCR 462
ii. Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, [2000] 1 Supp SCR 538

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965
ii. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16