Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 100      OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29987 of 2010)

Haryana Power Generation Corporation  Limited and Others      ...  Appellants

Versus

Harkesh Chand and Others                           ...Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  present  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  

against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  26th July,  2010  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh in LPA No. 865 of 2010 whereby the Division

Page 2

Bench concurred with the view expressed by the learned  

single  Judge in  CWP No.  1383 of  2009 whereunder  the  

respondents were held entitled for grant of Assured Career  

Progression  Scale  (for  short  “the  ACP  Scale”)  on  

completion of ten years of service which included training  

as apprentice.

3. The facts as have been undraped are that the three  

respondents invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court  

claiming  the  benefit  of  the  second  ACP  Scale  on  

completion of  twenty years of  service on the base that  

their period of training as apprentice had to be taken into  

consideration.  Such a claim was founded on the assertion  

that  they  had  joined  as  trainees  between  17.4.1987  to  

30.4.1987 and were subsequently absorbed and brought  

into the cadre.  On completion of ten years from the date  

they entered the service as trainees, the first ACP Scale  

was granted to them.  However, when conferring of the  

benefit of the second ACP Scale arose, the same was not  

extended  to  them.   The  said  action  of  the  employer  

compelled them to knock at the doors of the High Court  

and  during  the  pendency  of  the  writ  petition,  by  

2

Page 3

proceeding dated 23.4.2009, the benefits conferred under  

the  first  ACP  Scale  was  withdrawn  referring  to  a  

notification issued on 11.3.1990 which stipulated in clause  

(4) that the trainees referred to therein would be entitled  

to  increment  only  on  successful  completion  of  their  

training  and  in  case  of  Plant  Attendant  Grade-II  and  

Technician Grade-II,  increment on successful  completion  

of training would be granted but without arrears.  Though  

the writ petition was confined to grant of the second ACP  

Scale, yet the learned single Judge required the counsel  

for  both  the  sides  to  address  about  the  justifiability  of  

withdrawal  of  the  benefit  of  the  first  ACP  Scale  and  

decided  both  the  facets.   The  said  exercise  was  

undertaken by the learned single Judge as the primal issue  

in respect of both the ACP Scales rested on the question  

whether the period spent during training could be counted  

towards regular satisfactory service or not.

4. It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  respondents  were  

appointed  as  Apprentice  ITI  Trainees  by  the  erstwhile  

Haryana State Electricity Board (for short “the Board”) for  

a period of two years on fixed pay of Rs.350/- per month in  

3

Page 4

1987.  The Board, vide Office Order No. 706/Finance dated  

27.2.1998, set out the eligibility criteria for conferment of  

benefit of the ACP Scales.  There is no dispute that the  

respondents,  who  were  Technicians  Grade-II,  were  not  

excluded  from  the  application  of  the  same.   The  only  

question that really emerged for consideration before the  

learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench was  

the  relevant  date  from  which  the  regular  satisfactory  

service was to be computed for grant of ACP Scales.  The  

learned single Judge, after referring to the clause and the  

communications issued by the Board from time to time,  

came to hold that the regular satisfactory service would  

include the period spent by the persons as trainees.  As  

regards the withdrawal of the first ACP Scale, the learned  

single Judge, referring to the notification dated 14.3.1990  

and  especially  to  clause  (4)  which  dealt  with  grant  of  

increment  and  thereafter  applying  the  same reasoning,  

came to hold that clause (4) would have no operation to  

override the Office Order dated 27.2.1998 which provides  

how  the  regular  satisfactory  service  could  be  reckoned  

and, eventually, came to hold that the ACP Scale that had  

4

Page 5

been withdrawn during the pendency of the writ petition  

was absolutely erroneous.  Being of this view, he quashed  

the  withdrawal  order  and  issued  a  writ  of  mandamus  

commanding the  respondents  therein  to  grant  both the  

first  and  second  ACP  Scales  reckoning  the  period  of  

training towards the regular satisfactory service.

5. In  the  Letters  Patent  Appeal,  the  Division  Bench  

analysed the anatomy of clause 3(q) dealing with grant of  

the second ACP Scale and the eligibility  criteria,  placed  

reliance on the memorandum dated 27.3.1991 circulated  

to  all  the  departments  to  the  effect  that  the  period  of  

training of all employees should be treated as duty for all  

intents  and  purposes,  referred  to  the  memo  dated  

2.1.1992 which stated that the period of training shall be  

treated as duty for all intents and purposes, i.e., seniority,  

leave, etc. and for experience in service for the purpose of  

promotion and further relying on the memorandum dated  

20.1.1992 which has laid down that such period would be  

counted  as  experience  in  service  for  the  purposes  of  

promotion, concurred with the opinion expressed by the  

5

Page 6

learned single Judge and declined to entertain the appeal.  

Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.

6. We  have  heard  Mr.  Shivendra  Dwivedi,  learned  

counsel for the appellants, and Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned  

counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. At the very outset, we may note that the respondents  

were granted the first ACP Scale on 16.6.1997, 13.1.1999  

and  30.6.1998  with  effect  from  1.5.1997  instead  of  

1.11.1998 as on that date, they completed ten years of  

service.  The same was withdrawn during the pendency of  

the writ  petition where the grievance pertained to non-

grant  of  the second ACP Scale  in  terms of  the Scheme  

dated 27.2.1998 introduced by the Board.  It is also apt to  

note here that the respondents have already been granted  

second ACP Scale with effect from 1.11.2008.  Thus, the  

only grievance is that the period shall differ in respect of  

each respondent if the training period is not computed.

8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid narrow controversy,  

we think it apposite to scrutinize the various documents  

brought on record and how they are to  be understood,  

6

Page 7

appreciated  and  interpreted  regard  being  had  to  the  

contextual meaning of the term ‘training’.

9. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Apprentice  

ITI Trainee vide letter dated 28.3.1987 by the Board.  It  

was stipulated in the said letter that during the period of  

training, he would get a fixed pay of Rs.350/- per month  

and on successful completion of the training, he may be  

appointed as Plant Attendant Grade-II/Technician Grade-II  

in  the  scale  of  Rs.400-700  on  temporary  basis  and  he  

would be exclusively posted in the Thermal Organisation.  

It was also stipulated therein that he would enter into an  

agreement with the Board that he would serve the Board  

for  at  least  five  years  after  successful  completion  of  

training  and in  case  he would  leave the  service  of  the  

Board,  he  would  remit  the  entire  cost  incurred  by  the  

Board in  connection with the training during the period  

and  thereafter  during  the  course  of  his  appointment  

together  with interest.   Similar  letter  was issued to the  

other respondents.  Vide Office Order No. 303/EOM/G-263  

dated  6.6.1989,  number  of  persons  including  the  

respondents  were  appointed  as  Officiating  Technicians  

7

Page 8

Grade-II in the pay-scale of 950-20-1150-ED-25-1500 with  

effect from the dates mentioned against their names.  The  

respondents were appointed on regular basis with effect  

from 30.10.1988, 17.10.1988 and 25.10.1988 respectively  

with the stipulation that they would remain on probation  

for a period of two years.   

10. As the factual narration would exposit, the Board, in  

exercise  of  power  under  Section  79  of  the  Electricity  

(Supply) Act, 1948, issued a notification on 14.3.1990 by  

bringing  certain  amendments  in  the  recruitment  and  

promotion  for  employees  working  in  Thermal  Power  

Projects.  The relevant part of the amendment reads as  

follows: -

“Para 3(i) of Part-A shall be substituted and  read as follows:

50%  posts  shall  be  filled-up  by  direct  recruitment from amongst persons having  passed 2 years ITI  Course with Matric as  minimum  qualification.   Such  directly  recruited Plant attendant Gr-II shall remain  on  training  for  a  period  of  two  years  in  regular pay scale of Plant Attendant Gr-II  to be allowed by the Board from time to  time.   The  Competent  Authority  may  terminate the services of a Plant Attendant  Gr-II  (Trainee) without notice and without  assigning  any  reason,  if  his  work  and  

8

Page 9

conduct during the period of training is not  found satisfactory.”

“Para-3  (i)  of  Part-B  shall  be  substituted  and read as follows:

50%  posts  shall  be  filled-up  by  direct  recruitment from amongst persons having  passed  2  years  ITI  Course  with  Middle  examination with 2 years experience or ITI  one year  course  and Middle  Examination  and  with  3  years  experience  on  similar  works.   Such  directly  recruitment  Technician Gr-II shall remain on training for  a  period of  two years in  the regular  pay  scale to be allowed by the Board from time  to  time.   The  Competent  Authority  may  terminate the services of a Technician Gr-II  (Trainee)  without  notice  and  without  assigning  any  reason,  if  his  work  and  conduct  during  period  of  training,  is  not  found satisfactory.

The trainees referred to  above shall  be  entitled  to  the  increment  only  on  successful completion of their training.  In  case  of  Plant  attendant  Gr-II  and  Technician  Gr-II,  increment  on  successful  completion of training shall be granted, but  without arrears.”

[underlining is ours]

11. We  have  referred  to  the  substituted  clauses  in  

extenso  to  appreciate  the  use  of  the  word  ‘training’  

therein  after  appointment  to  a  post  and the  stipulation  

relating to the grant of increment.  In the context of this  

9

Page 10

notification, the policy relating to ACP Scale granted under  

the ACP Scheme and the clarificatory communications are  

to be understood.

12. Coming  back  to  the  narration,  recruitment  and  

promotion  policy  as  amended,  the  F.A.  &  C.A.O.,  PTPS,  

HSE, Panipat, vide Memo dated 7.12.1990 sought certain  

clarification  in  relation  to  grant  of  increments.   The  

clarification sought was to the following effect: -

“In  this  connection  it  may  please  be  clarified whether the period of training in  all the cases will count towards increment,  leave  salary  and  pension.   The  above  clarification may please be issued at  the  earliest  so  that  the  cases  are  dealt  with  accordingly  on  account  of  grant  of  increment and leave salary etc.”

13. On  27.3.1991,  the  Secretary,  HSEB,  clarified  the  

position by stating as follows: -

“Board vide its notification No. 57, 58, 59,  60/Reg-137,  dated  14.03.1990  and  Notification  No.  76/Reg-39/L,  dated  13.09.90 have granted regular pay scales  to  the  trainee(s)  of  all  categories  w.e.f.  29.1.1990.   In  this  respect  the  Field  Officers  have  sought  for  a  clarification  whether the period spent by the trainee on  training  is  to  be  treated  as  duty  for  all  intents and purposes or not.

10

Page 11

After considering the pros and cons of  the  case,  it  has  been  decided  that  the  period  spent  by  the  trainee(s)  of  all  categories on training shall be treated as  duty for all intents and purposes i.e. grant  of  increment  in  accordance  with  the  provisions as contained in the Policy, leave  and seniority i.e. from the date of joining in  this cadre.”

[emphasis supplied]

14. In  continuation  of  the  aforesaid  clarificatory  

memorandum dated 27.3.1991, the Board issued another  

memorandum  on  22.11.1991.   The  said  clarification  

related to grant of regular pay scale to the trainees of all  

categories and in that letter, it has been stated as follows:  

-

“In this connection, it is stated that some  field offices have sought for a clarification  as to whether the benefit for the grant of  annual increment under the provisions as  contained in letter dated 27.3.91 is to be  given to all trainee(s), who were appointed  during the year, 1987, 1988 & 1989 etc.”

15. After  referring  to  the  issue  which  required  

clarification,  the Board clarified that it  has decided that  

monetary benefits of regular pay scale had to be granted  

to  the  trainee(s)  of  all  categories  with  effect  from  

29.1.1990 but  the benefit  of  grant  of  annual  increment  

11

Page 12

under  the  provisions  as  contained  in  letter  dated  

27.3.1991  has  to  be  given  to  the  trainee(s)  of  all  

categories  whose  services  have  been  regularized  on  

29.1.1991 or thereafter.  It had been further stated that  

the  consequential  benefits  would  accrue  only  from  the  

date on which the regular pay scale has been granted to  

the trainees of all categories.

16. As  the  facts  have  been  further  uncurtained,  on  

27.1.1998,  the  Board  introduced  the  Assured  Career  

Progression Scheme (for short “the ACP Scheme”) with the  

objective to provide such Board employees who fall within  

the  scope  of  the  Scheme  at  least  two  financial  

upgradations including the financial  upgradation,  if  any,  

availed by such Board employees as a consequence of the  

functional  promotion.   Clause  2  excludes  certain  

categories  of  employees,  namely,  appointed  on  ad  hoc  

basis,  work  charged  basis,  part  time  paid  out  of  

contingencies and a daily wager from getting the benefit  

of  the Scheme.  Clause 3 deals with the definitions.   It  

defines in Clause 3(b) “direct recruit fresh entrant”.  The  

same, being relevant, is reproduced below: -

12

Page 13

“(b) “Direct Recruited Fresh Entrant” with  reference to a post or a Board Employee  means  the  post  on  which  such  Board  employee was recruited as a regular and  direct recruitee in the Board service and is  in continuous employment of Board since  such recruitment;”

17. Clause 5 deals  with the eligibility  for  grant  of  ACP  

Scales.   That  being  the  thrust  of  the  controversy  the  

relevant part of the said clause is reproduced below: -

“5. Eligibility for Grant of ACP Scales:

(1) Every  Board  employee  who,  after  a  regular  satisfactory  service  for  a  minimum period of 10 years, has not  got any financial upgradation in terms  of  grant  of  a  pay  scale  higher  than  the  functional  pay  scale  prescribed  for  the  post  as  on  31.12.1995,  on  which  he  was  recruited  as  direct  recruited fresh entrant: -

(a) either  as  a  consequence  of  his  functional  promotion  in  the  hierarchy, or

(b) as a consequence of the revision  of pay scale for the same post,  or

(c) as  a consequence of  any other  event  through  which  the  functional pay scale of the post  has been upgraded, with respect  to  the  functional  pay  scale  prescribed  for  the  post  as  on  31.12.1995,  shall  for  the  purposes  of  drawal  of  pay;  be  eligible  for  placement  into  the  

13

Page 14

First ACP scale with reference to  him.

(2) Every  Board  employee  who,  after  a  regular  satisfactory  service  for  a  minimum period of 20 years, has not  got  more  than  one  financial  upgradation in terms of grant of pay  scale higher than the functional  pay  scale  prescribed  for  the  post  as  on  31.12.1995 on which he was recruited  as a direct recruited fresh entrant: -

(a) either  as  a  consequence  of  his  functional  promotion  in  the  hierarchy, or

(b) as a consequence of the revision  of pay scale for the same post,  or

(c) as a consequences of any other  event  through  which  the  functional pay scale of the post  has been upgraded, with respect  to  the  functional  pay  scale  prescribed  for  the  post  as  on  31.12.1995,  shall  for  the  purposes  of  drawal  of  pay;  be  eligible  for  placement  into  the  First ACP scale with reference to  him.

Provided that grant of ACP scale shall  also  be  considered  financial  upgradation  for  the  purpose  of  this  para.

NOTE : For  the purposes of  this  scheme  regular  satisfactory  service  would  mean  continuous  service  counting  towards  seniority  under  H.S.E.B.  including  continuous  service  in  P.S.E.B.  before  reorganization, commencing from the date  

14

Page 15

on  which  the  board  employee  joined  his  service  after  being  recruited  through the  prescribed procedure or  rules  regulations  etc. for regular recruitment, in the cadre in  which he is working at the time of being  considered his  eligibility  for  grant  of  ACP  scales  under  this  scheme  and  further  fulfilling all the recruitments prescribed for  determining the suitability of grant of ACP  scales.  The period spent on ad hoc basis;  work charged basis; contingent basis and  daily  wages  will  not  be  counted  for  the  purpose of counting of prescribed length of  “Regular  Satisfactory  Service”  for  this  scheme.”

[emphasis supplied]

18. In this backdrop, it is to be seen whether the period  

spent in apprenticeship would be counted towards regular  

satisfactory service.  The learned single Judge as well as  

the Division Bench has returned a finding in favour of the  

respondents solely on the basis of the clarificatory letters  

and  communications.   Before  we  advert  to  the  

quintessential  tenor  of  the  said  communications,  it  is  

necessitous to understand the nature of appointment, the  

concept of an apprentice, his rights under the law and the  

basic ingredients of regular satisfactory service.

19. As  has  been  stated  earlier,  the  respondents  were  

appointed as apprentices ITI  trainee for  a period of two  

15

Page 16

years.  Each of them were paid a fixed salary of Rs.350/-.  

After completion of the training, it was mentioned in the  

letter of appointment that they may be appointed to the  

post of Officiating Technical Grade-II in the pay scale of  

Rs.400/700 on temporary basis.   

20. Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short  

“the  1961  Act”)  defines  “apprentice”  which  means  a  

person  who  is  undergoing  apprenticeship  training  in  

pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship.   

21. Section  2(aaa)  defines  “apprenticeship  training”  

which  means  a  course  of  training  in  any  industry  or  

establishment  undergone  in  pursuance  of  a  contract  of  

apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and conditions  

which  may  be  different  for  different  categories  of  

apprentices.   Section  18  clearly  states  that  apprentices  

are trainees and not workers.

22. In  U.P.  State  Electricity  Board  v.  Shiv  Mohan  

Singh and Another1, A.K. Mathur, J., speaking for Hegde,  

J. and himself, while dealing with the status of apprentice,  

has stated thus: - 1 (2004) 8 SCC 402

16

Page 17

“Therefore  a  combined  reading  of  the  sections as well as Rules makes it clear  that  apprentices  are  only  persons  undergoing  training  and  during  that  training  they  are  entitled  to  get  a  particular stipend, they have to work for  fixed hours and at the end of period of  training they have to appear in the test  and  a  certificate  is  issued  to  them.  There is no obligation on the part of the  employer to give them any employment  whatsoever.  The  position  of  the  apprentice  remains  as  an  apprentice  trainee and during the period of training  they  will  not  be  treated  as  workmen.  Only  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  employer is to impart them training as  per provisions of the Act and Rules and  to pay them stipend as required under  Rule  11  and  beyond  that  there  is  no  obligation on the part of the employer to  accept them as his employees and give  them the status of workmen. There is no  relation  of  master  and  servant  or  employer and employee.”

23. Be it noted, in the said case, in paragraph 51, it has  

been laid down that the 1961 Act is a complete code in  

itself and it lays down the conditions of the apprentices,  

their  tenure,  their  terms  and  conditions  and  their  

obligations and what are the obligations of the employer.  

It also lays down that the apprentices are trainees and not  

workmen and if  any dispute arises,  then the settlement  

has  to  be  made  by  the  Apprenticeship  Advisor  as  per  

17

Page 18

Section 20 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and his decision  

thereof is final. The nature and character of the apprentice  

is  nothing  but  that  of  a  trainee  and he is  supposed to  

enter into a contract and by virtue of that contract, he is  

to serve for a fixed period on a fixed stipend and that does  

not change the character of the apprentice to that of a  

workman under the employer where he is undergoing the  

apprenticeship training. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 only  

lays down that such contract should be registered with the  

Apprenticeship  Adviser,  but  by  non-registration  of  the  

contract, the position of the apprentice is not changed to  

that  of  a  workman.  From  the  scheme  of  the  Act,  the  

apprentice  is  recruited  for  the  purpose  of  training  as  

defined in Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and  

from the  language employed  in  Sections  6  and 7,  it  is  

more  than  clear  that  the  nature  and  character  of  the  

apprentice is that of a trainee only and on the expiry of  

the training, there is no corresponding obligation on the  

part of the employer to employ him.  

24. Thereafter,  the  majority,  referring  to  Section  22 of  

the Act, opined as follows: -

18

Page 19

“Section  22 makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  at  the  end  of  the  apprenticeship  training, it is not obligatory on the part  of the employer to offer an employment  to an apprentice who has completed the  period of apprenticeship. It is only if the  terms  of  the  contract  of  the  apprenticeship lay down a condition that  on  successful  completion  of  an  apprenticeship training, an employer will  offer  him  an  employment  then  it  is  obligatory on the part of the employer  to  do so.  If  there is  no such condition  stipulated in the apprenticeship contract  then the employer cannot be compelled  to offer employment to such apprentice.  At the same time, it is not obligatory on  the part of the apprentice to serve that  employer if there is no such stipulation  to this effect. So it is a mutual thing and  it depends on the terms of contract. The  survey of all these provisions of the Acts  and  the  Rules  as  mentioned  above,  makes  it  clear  that  the  character  and  status of apprentice remains the same  and he does not become workman and  labour laws are not attracted.”

S.B.  Sinha, J.,  in his concurring opinion,  has stated  

thus: -

“Moreover in terms of Section 22 of the  Act,  the  employer  has  no  statutory  liability  to  give  employment  to  an  apprentice.”

25. In  Narinder Kumar and Others v. The State of  

Punjab and Others2, a two-Judge Bench dwelt upon the  2 AIR 1985 SC 275

19

Page 20

letter  of  appointment  of  apprentices  and  came to  hold  

that the employer was bound to appoint the apprentices  

in the available vacancies because of Section 22(2) of the  

1961  Act  and the  contractual  obligations  arising  out  of  

para 2 of the letter of appointment which stated that the  

apprentices shall be absorbed in the department if there  

are  vacancies.   Be  it  noted,  emphasis  was  laid  on  the  

nature of the contract.

26. In  Dhampur  Sugar  Mills  Ltd.  v.  Bhola  Singh3,  

while dealing with an award passed by the Labour Court  

under  the  U.P.  Industrial  Disputes  Act  relating  to  

apprentices, a two-Judge Bench opined thus: -

“14. If the respondent was appointed in  terms of the Apprentices Act, 1961, he  will not be a workman, as has been held  by  this  Court  in  Mukesh  K.  Tripathi v.  Senior Divisional Manager, LIC4 and U.P.  SEB v. Shiv Mohan Singh (supra).

15.  In  terms  of  the  provisions  of  the  Apprentices Act,  1961,  a trainee or an  apprentice has no right to be absorbed  in services.”

27. We have referred to the aforesaid pronouncements  

solely for the purpose that an apprentice does not have  3 (2005) 2 SCC 470 4 (2004) 8 SCC 387

20

Page 21

a  statutory  right  to  claim  an  appointment  and  the  

employer is not under any statutory obligation to give  

him employment.  However, if the terms of the contract  

of  apprenticeship  lay  down  a  condition  that  on  

successful  completion  of  apprenticeship  an  employer  

would offer him an employment, then it is obligatory on  

his part to do so.  In the absence of such a condition,  

there is no obligation.  It depends on the terms of the  

contract.   In  the  case  at  hand,  as  the  letter  of  

appointment would show, the employer had only stated  

that  on  successful  completion  of  the  training,  the  

apprentice  may  be  appointed  as  Plant  

Attendant/Technician  Grade-II.   Thus,  it  was  not  a  

mandatory term incorporated in the agreement casting  

an obligation on the employer to appoint him.   

28. Having  dealt  with  the  rights  of  an  apprentice,  we  

may presently proceed to dwell upon the issue whether  

any of the clarificatory letters/circulars conferred any  

benefit  on  these  employees  so  that  they  could  be  

treated to be in regular service.  On a perusal of the  

notification issued by the Board, it is clear as crystal  

21

Page 22

that it relates to two categories of direct recruits who  

shall undergo training for a period of two years in the  

regular pay scale.   Thus, the said notification has no  

application to apprentices who avail  the training.   In  

the clarification issued on 27.3.1991, there is a mention  

with regard to the regular pay scale in the notification  

dated 13.9.1990.  The query was limited to the issue  

whether the training period of such a trainee would be  

counted for  all  intents and purposes or  not.   In  that  

context,  it  was clarified that the period spent by the  

apprentice of all categories shall be treated as duty for  

all intents and purposes, i.e., for grant of increment in  

accordance  with  the  provisions  as  contained  in  the  

policy, leave and seniority, i.e., from the date of joining  

in  this  cadre.   It  is  worth noting that  the Board had  

issued further clarification that the benefit of grant of  

annual increment under the provisions as contained in  

the  letter  dated  27.3.1991  was  to  be  given  to  the  

trainees  of  all  categories  whose  services  had  been  

regularized  on  29.1.1991  or  thereafter,  and  the  

consequential benefit should accrue only from the date  

22

Page 23

on which the regular pay scale has been granted to the  

trainees of all categories.  Clause 5 of the ACP Scheme  

which  provides  for  eligibility  criteria,  in  its  note  

stipulates that for the purpose of the scheme, regular  

satisfactory  service  would  mean  continuous  service  

counting towards seniority  under the Board including  

the continuous service in PSEB before reorganization.  

It has been clearly stated that period spent on ad hoc  

basis, work charged basis, contingent basis and daily  

wages  would  not  be  counted  for  the  purpose  of  

counting the prescribed length of regular satisfactory  

service for the scheme.  The respondents, as is evident,  

were  appointed  on  different  dates,  i.e.,  30.10.1988,  

17.10.1988 and 25.10.1988 respectively as Technicians  

Grade-II in the pay scale on regular basis.  Their period  

of  probation  was  for  two  years.   The  letter/circular  

dated 27.3.1991 emphasizes the terms from the date  

of  joining  in  the  cadre.   As  is  perceptible  from  the  

clarificatory letter dated 27.3.1991, the trainees of all  

categories have been granted regular pay scale from  

21.1.1990  and  decision  had  been  taken  that  the  

23

Page 24

training  period  or  period  spent  as  trainees  of  all  

categories shall be treated as duty for all intents and  

purposes.   On  20th of  January,  1992,  it  was  further  

clarified  that  the  period  spent  by  the  trainees  of  all  

categories on training would be counted as experience  

in service for the purposes of promotion.  On a scrutiny  

of  the  promotion  policy,  the  ACP  Scheme  and  the  

communications, we find that the High Court has erred  

in  its  appreciation  of  the  contents  of  the  promotion  

policy and the conditions incorporated in the scheme  

and the clarificatory letters issued from time to time  

and their essential purport.  The Board, on 14.3.1990,  

substituted  and  added  certain  clauses  to  the  

recruitment  and  promotion  policy.   We  have  

reproduced the same earlier and on a proper scrutiny,  

it  is  perceivable  that  50% posts  are  to  be  filled  by  

direct  recruitment  from  amongst  persons  who  have  

passed  2  years  ITI  course  with  Matric  as  minimum  

qualification  and  such  directly  recruited  Plant  

Attendants  Grade-II  would  remain  on  training  for  a  

period of two years on the regular pay scale of Plant  

24

Page 25

Attendant  Grade-II  to  be  allowed  by  the  Board  from  

time to time, and the other 50% is be filled up by direct  

recruitment  from amongst  persons who have passed  

two years ITI course with middle examination with two  

years  experience or  ITI  one year  course with  middle  

examination and with three years experience of similar  

works.  Such directly recruited Technician Grade-II shall  

remain  on  training  for  a  period  of  two  years  in  the  

regular  pay  scale.   The clarificatory  letter  has  to  be  

read in the said context and we are disposed to think  

so  as the persons appointed under  the policy  in  the  

regular pay scale are required to go on training.  The  

clarification sought related to grant of increment and  

computation of period that is spent as trainee in the  

capacity  of  Plant  Attendant  Grade-II  and  in  that  

context, the clarification issued was that the training of  

all  categories  on  training  would  be  counted.   It  is  

worthy to note that the respondents were not recruited  

under  the  said  policy.   They  were  appointed  as  

apprentices ITI trainee on 28.3.1987 and they were not  

given any kind of post.  It is only mentioned that they  

25

Page 26

may  be  appointed  as  Plant  Attendant  Grade-

II/Technician Grade-II.  Thereafter, they were appointed  

on  different  dates  as  Officiating  Technician  Grade-II.  

The  regular  pay  scale  was  given  from  the  date  of  

appointment.  Prior to that, it was a fixed pay.  They  

were not working on a post.  They did not belong to any  

cadre.  In fact, they were not recruited and, hence, the  

term  trainee  which  has  been  referred  to  in  various  

clarificatory letters has been misconstrued by the High  

Court.

29. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we conclude and  

hold that the judgments rendered by the learned single  

Judge  as  well  as  by  the  Division  Bench  are  

unsustainable  and  are,  accordingly,  set  aside.  

However,  we clarify  that  if  any  financial  benefit  had  

been availed by the respondents, the same shall not be  

recovered, but their dates for grant of ACP Scale shall  

remain as determined by the appellants.  Accordingly,  

the appeal is disposed of.  The parties shall bear their  

respective costs.

26

Page 27

……………………………….J. [K. S. Radhakrishnan]

……………………………….J.                                            [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; January  07, 2013

27