Sanctioned Strength of Junior Engineers Found to Be 384 – 76 Employees Rightfully Entitled to Selection Grade: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Selection Grade for Junior Engineers of Haryana State Electricity Board

In a significant ruling on January 31, 2025, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB), thereby affirming the decisions of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which had granted Selection Grade benefits to Junior Engineers of the Board.

The Court ruled that Selection Grade must be awarded based on a sanctioned cadre strength of 384 posts, rather than the 264 posts claimed by the HSEB. Consequently, 76 employees were entitled to Selection Grade benefits as per the applicable policy. The High Court found no legal or factual error in the lower courts' decisions and refused to interfere with their findings.

The plaintiffs, employees of HSEB, working as Junior Engineers (JEs) at Faridabad and Panipat Thermal Power Stations, filed a suit seeking Selection Grade benefits from April 1, 1979. They claimed that as per the Selection Grade Policy of the Board, 20% of the total sanctioned cadre strength should be awarded Selection Grade. The plaintiffs contended that the sanctioned strength was 430 posts, entitling 86 employees to the benefit.

The defendants, however, disputed the cadre strength and argued that the sanctioned strength was only 264 posts, thereby limiting Selection Grade eligibility to 52 employees. They further contended that the grant of Selection Grade was linked to a pending writ petition (CWP-4194-1986) before the High Court, making the civil suit untenable.

Both the Trial Court (May 29, 1998) and the First Appellate Court (October 8, 1999) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the actual sanctioned strength was 384 posts, and thus, 76 employees were eligible for Selection Grade. The High Court upheld these findings and dismissed the second appeal.

"Pendency of a Writ Petition Does Not Bar Civil Court Jurisdiction": High Court Rejects Defendants' Argument

The HSEB contended that the pending Writ Petition (CWP-4194-1986) before the High Court prevented the civil court from adjudicating on Selection Grade entitlements. However, the High Court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that no stay order had been granted in the writ petition.

The Court observed: "There was no stay granted in the pending writ petition. Thus, the Trial Court rightly directed the defendants to decide the matter of grant of Selection Grade within six months while considering the impact of the writ petition, if any."

The Court reaffirmed that a pending writ petition does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of a civil court unless there is a specific stay or order restricting its authority.

"Selection Grade Must Be Based on Sanctioned Cadre Strength of 384, Not 264": Court Rejects HSEB’s Claim

A key issue in the case was the calculation of cadre strength for determining eligibility for Selection Grade. While the plaintiffs initially claimed a sanctioned strength of 430 posts, the HSEB argued that it was only 264.

However, cross-examination of HSEB's own witness (DW-1, K.L. Sachdeva) revealed that the sanctioned strength was actually 384, which included 188 Thermal Supervisors and 196 Thermal Operators.

The Court referred to the findings of the First Appellate Court, which had noted: "It stands established that the total posts for Selection Grade had a sanctioned strength of 384. The claim of the plaintiffs that Operators numbering 46 as shown in list Ex.P11 were also included in that strength, is not tenable... Thus, 76 persons were entitled for Selection Grade whereas the Selection Grade was released only for 18 employees."

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling that 20% of 384 posts amounted to 76 employees being eligible for Selection Grade.

"No Illegality or Perversity in Findings – No Interference Warranted in Second Appeal": High Court Dismisses Appeal

The High Court reiterated that it could not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there was a substantial question of law or any evident perversity. After reviewing the record, the Court found no error or legal infirmity in the lower courts' judgments.

Rejecting the HSEB’s challenge, the Court stated: "There is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgments, and as such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed."

The judgment reinforces the principle that selection benefits must be awarded as per the sanctioned cadre strength and cannot be arbitrarily denied by the employer.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming that 76 Junior Engineers were entitled to Selection Grade benefits. It rejected the HSEB’s contention that the cadre strength was only 264 and dismissed the claim that a pending writ petition barred civil court jurisdiction.

By ruling that Selection Grade must be determined on the basis of actual sanctioned strength, the High Court set a precedent ensuring fair application of service rules and preventing arbitrary denial of employee benefits.

Date of Decision: January 31, 2025