Entitlement To Selection Grade Is Based On Sanctioned Cadre Strength, Not Actual Number Of Occupied Posts: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court bench comprising of Justice Deepak Gupta held that the entitlement to Selection Grade is based on the sanctioned cadre strength and not on the actual number of posts occupied. Background facts The plaintiffs were working in different branches in the Thermal Power House of Haryana State Electricity Board (H.S.E.B.). Their designation was fixed as Thermal Supervisors/Thermal Operators. The total sanctioned post of the Cadre at Faridabad and Panipat was 430. The plaintiffs were re-designated as Jr. Engineers in their respective fields of specialization by the defendants on 9.2.1981. Their scales were also revised with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 1.4.1979. The defendants released Selection Grades to 20% of the sanctioned posts of Thermal Supervisors and Thermal Operators. But the defendant released Selection Grade only to 18 Jr. Engineers who were earlier working as Thermal Supervisors/Thermal Operators. The plaintiffs represented to the department that as per 20% of the sanctioned 430 posts of Jr. Engineers, 86 employees should be eligible for the grant of Selection Grade in the revised pay scale. But the defendants did not accept their request. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the Haryana State Electricity Board (H.S.E.B.) for declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to the grant of Selection Grade as Jr. Engineers with effect from 01.04.1979. The plaintiffs sought directions to the defendants to release the Selection Grade. The trial Court decided in favour of plaintiffs by holding that plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of selection cadre in accordance with their seniority. Later the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, H.S.E.B. filed the second appeal. It was contended by the H.S.E.B. that the total strength of the junior engineer cadre was 264, not 430 as claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, only 20% (52 employees) were eligible for the grant of Selection Grade, based on actual cadre strength and seniority. It was contended that no Selection Grade is admissible due to the revision of pay scales by the board after 01.01.1986. It was further submitted that Thermal Operators had not been re-designated as Junior Engineers but had been placed in a different pay scale of 600-1100 and designated as Thermal Supervisor Grade-II according to the recruitment and promotion policy of the board. This way the cadre strength of Junior Engineer (Thermal) was reduced. So the selection grade was to be granted on the basis of the actual number of posts occupied and not on the basis of the cadre strength. It was further contended by the H.S.E.B. that lower courts ignored the fact that selection grade was to be granted on the basis of actual working position. Therefore, at the relevant time, the actual cadre strength was 264 and as such only 52 (20%) Junior Engineers were eligible for grant of selection cadre. On the other hand it was contended by the employees that the total strength of the junior engineer cadre was 430, not 264, as claimed by the H.S.E.B. Therefore, based on this strength, 20% of the posts were entitled to Selection Grade. The employees argued that 86 employees were eligible for Selection Grade as Jr. Engineers with effect from 1.4.1979, as per defendants' own policy. Therefore, they should be granted Selection Grade with retrospective effect. Findings and Observations of the Court It was observed by the court that the trial Court rightly held that calculation made by the employees regarding existing strength of the cadre of Jr. Engineers (Thermal) was incorrect because re-designations were later-on changed. It was further observed by the court that sanctioned strength of Jr. Engineers was 384, which included 188 of Thermal Supervisors and 196 of Thermal Operators. It was admitted by H.S.E.B. that Thermal Operators and Thermal Supervisors were re-designated as Jr. Engineers but Operators were not included therein. It was held by the court that total posts for Selection Grade had sanctioned strength of 384. Therefore claim of the employees that Operators numbering 46 were also included in that strength is not valid. Thus, it was held that the 20% strength for grant of Selection Grade comes to 76 considering total strength of the cadre to be 384. Thus, 76 persons were entitled for Selection Grade whereas the Selection Grade was released only for 18 employees. It was observed by the court that the sanctioned strength of Junior Engineers was found to be 384 on the basis of admission made by the H.S.E.B. Therefore, it was held by the court that considering the total strength of the cadre, 20% strength for the grant of selection grade comes to 76 and thus, 76 persons were entitled for the selection grade. Therefore the Court upheld...

Entitlement To Selection Grade Is Based On Sanctioned Cadre Strength, Not Actual Number Of Occupied Posts: Punjab & Haryana HC

Namdev Singh

Tags