Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pseb Patiala vs Jit Singh on 2 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043647
RSA No. 290 of 1993(O&M) 2024:PHHC:043647
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(124) RSA No. 290 of 1993(O&M)
Date of Decision : 02.04.2024
Punjab State Electricity Board and another
...Appellants
Versus
Jit Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Himani Jamwal, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present regular second appeal, the judgment and
decree dated 15.03.1989 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and
decree dated 18.08.1992 passed by the appellate court have been assailed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants argues that the
basis of allowing the claim of the respondent-plaintiff is decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board,
Patiala and another Vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and others, (1986) 4
SCC 617, according to which, the quota prescribed for diploma and non-
diploma holders for further promotion was held to be bad. Learned
counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that the judgment in
Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (supra) was not followed by a larger
bench of Supreme Court while passing order in P. Murugesan and others
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043647
RSA No. 290 of 1993(O&M) 2024:PHHC:043647
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1993) 2 SCC 340, Paragraph-19,
which reads as under :-
"19. The learned counsel for respondents relied upon the
decision in Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Ravinder
Kumar Sharma and Ors., [1987] 1 SCR 72, a decision rendered
by a Bench comprising A.P. Sen and B.C. Ray, JJ. the category of
line-men in the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board
comprised both diploma- holders and others who may be referred
to as non-diploma- holders. They constituted one single category
having a common seniority list. By means of the Rules issued
under the proviso to Article 309, a quota was prescribed for
diploma-holders, the result of which was that diploma- holders
who were far junior to the non-diploma-holders were promoted
ignoring the non-diploma-holders. The rule was held to be bad by
the learned Subordinate Judge, Patiala. On appeal, the Additional
District Judge, Patiala affirmed the judgment. It was affirmed by
the High Court as well. The matter was brought to this Court.
This court affirmed the judgment of the High Court. A persual of
the judgment shows that the attention of the Bench was not drawn
either to TN. Khosa or to other decisions. Reference was made
only to the obser-
vations in Shujat All quoted hereinbefore and it was held that the
distinction made between the diploma-holders and non-diploma-
holders was discriminatory and bad. Apart from the distinction on
facts between that case and the case before us, it is evident that
non-consideration of the T.N. Khosa and other decisions relevant
under the subject has led to the laying down of a proposition
which seems to run counter to T.N. Khosa. With great respect to
the learned Judges who decided that case, we are unable to
accept the broad proposition flowing from the case."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that
once the principle of law, which has been made the basis of the judgments
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043647
RSA No. 290 of 1993(O&M) 2024:PHHC:043647
of the courts below, has not been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, the present regular second appeal may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has not been
able to dispute that the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case
(supra), has held to be bad by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It may be noticed that while issuing notice of motion in the
present appeal, the judgments and decrees of the courts below was stayed.
The relief in terms of the judgments of the courts below has not been
extended to the respondent-plaintiff as of now.
7. Once, the basis of the judgments of the courts is the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ravinder Kumar
Sharma's case (supra) that there cannot be any quota between the
diploma and non-diploma holders for further promotions and the
respondent-plaintiff being senior to the diploma holders, is entitled for
promotion on the basis of seniority, but the same is held to be not a good
law in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.
Murugesan and others (supra), in the year 1993. That being the factual
position that after the year 1993 the quota between the diploma holders
and non-diploma holders for further promotion has again been revived,
the judgments and decrees of the courts below granting promotion by
ignoring the quota, cannot be upheld.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043647
RSA No. 290 of 1993(O&M) 2024:PHHC:043647
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has not been
able to dispute the said fact.
9. Keeping in view the above, the present regular second appeal
is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below dated
15.03.1989 and 18.08.1992 are set-aside being perverse to the settled
principle of law as settled in P. Murugesan and others (supra) and the
suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed.
10. It is made clear that in case, the respondent-plaintiff has
already been promoted de-horse the quota rule, the said benefit if
extended independent of the judgment of the Courts below, will not be
withdrawn from the respondent-plaintiff, especially, he has already retired
and must be under late eightees.
11. Present regular second appeal is allowed.
Any miscellaneous application, if pending, is disposed of.
April 2nd, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
