Supreme Court of India

Punjab State Electricity Board vs V.N. Sharma on 5 September, 1994

Supreme Court of India
Punjab State Electricity Board vs V.N. Sharma on 5 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (1) 20 1994 SCALE (4)605
Author: K Ramaswamy
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.
           PETITIONER:
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
V.N. SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/09/1994

BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:
 1995 SCC  Supl.  (1)  20 1994 SCALE  (4)605


ACT:



HEADNOTE:



JUDGMENT:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to two advance
increments which were granted by the
+ From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-1994 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3081 of 1993
21
High Court in Civil WP No. 3081 of 1993 dated 31-1-1994.
The appellant made statutory regulations titled the Punjab
State Electricity Board (Revised Pay) Regulations, 1988
which have come into force on 1-1-1986. As Rule 3 of the
Regulations which says that in these regulations, unless
anything repugnant in the subject or context, the
regulations have the overriding effect. Under Regulation 8
it is provided fixation of the pay on promotion thus:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, in
case of promotion to a higher post effected after the date
of publication of this order, the benefit of minimum two
increments shall be given while fixing the pay in the scale
of the higher post. The next increment in the scale of the
higher post shall be allowed after the completion of twelve
months’ qualifying service in that scale under the rules.
These regulations are prospective in operation and those who
have been qualified and promoted after the regulations have
come into force alone are entitled to two advance increments
and not those who have been promoted earlier to the date the
regulations have come into force. The non-obstante clause
and also Regulation 3 clearly postulate that if there is any
inconsistency, then the regulation shall prevail over any
other rules. In this statutory background the High Court is
clearly in error in allowing the benefits to the respondent.
But however since respondent had already retired from
service we decline to interfere with the order passed by the
High Court. The civil appeal is accordingly disposed of.
No costs.

22