Equitable Treatment in Time-Bound Promotions

Delve into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the court regarding time-bound promotions in a recent case. The court’s thorough examination of the regulations and precedents provides valuable insights into the principles of equality and fairness in promotions. Understanding the court’s reasoning is essential for grasping the complexities of this legal issue.


  • The appellants in the present appeals were seeking time-bound promotional scale while working as Assistant Engineers.
  • The services of the appellants are governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965.
  • They were promoted to the said post from the post of Junior Engineer.
  • The appeals were filed against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 09.04.2014, which set aside the order granting the time-bound promotional scale to the appellants.
  • Another writ petition was filed by T. R. Bansal, a junior Assistant Engineer (Civil).
  • The Division Bench of the High Court allowed Bansal’s writ petition on 1.02.2005.
  • A Special Leave Petition against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.07.2010.
  • An intra-Court Appeal against the Division Bench’s order was also dismissed on 15.2.2002.
  • T. R. Bansal had filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 26.08.1999.
  • An intra-Court Appeal against this decision was dismissed on 13.08.2001.
  • The case was reported as Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Rajinder Singh Patpatia and Another.
  • Subsequently, another writ petition no. 468 of 2004 filed by T.S. Behl and others was allowed on 10.02.2006 by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Also Read: Judicial Review of Answer Key in Teacher Selection Process


  • Appellants are argued to be entitled to equal treatment in the matter of pay once promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer.
  • Directly recruited Assistant Engineers were granted time-bound promotional scale, while the senior appellants were denied such benefits.
  • The High Court dismissed the case of the appellants, citing a judgment in Krishan Kumar Vij, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court in a subsequent case involving Bhakra Beas Management Board.
  • Appellants have never claimed equal pay within the same cadre.
  • Appellants sought time-bound promotional scale after 9-16 years’ service at par with specific individuals.
  • Second Circular was not disputed by any appellants at any stage.

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Admission Denial and Seat Creation in Medical College Case


  • The appellants were not entitled to time-bound promotional scale as they were promoted within 9 or 16 years from their initial appointment.
  • Promotion after 9 years bars further promotion within 3 years for Er. Inderjit Singh Sodhi, Er. Kirpal Singh, and Er. Raj Kumar Garg.
  • Qualification and promotion against reserved posts are prerequisites for parity with Kirpal Singh Mangat and Raj Kumar Garg.
  • Competent authority for time-bound promotional scales after 9 and 16 years is the promoting authority.
  • Shri Krishan Kumar Vij lacked necessary qualifications and was not appointed as per Regulations.
  • Promotees need to wait at least 3 years before moving to the next promotional scale.
  • Legal fiction for promotions under specific Regulations extended only to direct recruits with certain qualifications.
  • Employees appointed by direct recruitment vs. those promoted have distinct entitlements to promotional scales.
  • Circulars issued by the Board delineate time-bound promotional scales for different categories of employees.
  • Regulation 10 allows for the promotion of candidates with a minimum of 10 years’ experience
  • The promotion is subject to the condition that their number does not exceed 30% of the total cadre posts of Assistant Engineers
  • Recruitment to the Service can be done through direct appointment, promotion, or transfer of an officer already in service
  • Qualification for direct appointment as AE (Civil) includes a BE in Civil Engineering from a recognized institution or university
  • Krishan Kumar Vij raised an argument that was examined in a previous court case.
  • The court relied on the judgment in Kunhayammed & Ors v. State Of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359.
  • The dismissal of special leave petitions does not impact the question of law.
  • The pre-relied precedents relied on by the counsel for the parties were cited and discussed in detail.
  • The court considered the legal principles laid down in the pre-relied judgments to arrive at its decision.
  • The pre-relied cases were distinguished by the court based on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
  • The counsel’s arguments were analyzed in light of the pre-relied judgments to determine their applicability to the case at hand.
  • The High Court’s decision in the impugned judgment regarding the appellants not being entitled to time-bound promotional scale based on parity was correct.
  • The argument for the appellants being entitled to promotion scale after 23 years was not raised in the writ petition or the present appeals.
  • This argument was presented for the first time in the written submissions and cannot be raised at this stage.
  • There is no error in the High Court’s order that would require intervention from this Court.

Also Read: Merit-Based Appointments in Public Service


  • The appeals are dismissed in accordance with the court’s decision.
  • All arguments and claims made in the appeals have been considered and rejected.
  • The decision of the lower court is upheld based on the evidence presented.


Case Number: C.A. No.-003837-003837 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *