KULDIP SINGH - (1.) THE recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Class III Service in the Punjab Labour Department are regulated by the statutory rules called the Punjab Labour Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1969 (the Rules). Rule 8(1)(a)(i) of the Rules is relevant for the purposes of these appeals. It would, however, be useful to reproduce Rule 8(1) as a whole :- "8. Recruitment to the Service shall be made in the manner indicated below :- 1. Field and Technical Staff (a) In the case of Labour Inspectors- (i) by promotion from amongst the Wage Inspectors and ministerial employees who are members of the Punjab Labour Department (State Service Class III) having three years' experience of the working of labour laws as such; (ii) by transfer of a person who possesses educational and other qualifications as provided for in Rule 9 and is already in the service of the Government of India or of a State Government; and (iii) by direct appointment : Provided that 60 per cent of the vacancies shall be filled in by the method prescribed by sub-clause (i), (35 per cent out of Wage Inspectors and 25 per cent out of ministerial employees mentioned in sub-clause (i) and 40 per cent of the vacancies shall be filled in by the methods prescribed by sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) and the number of persons appointed by transfer shall not exceed 5 per cent of the total personnel recruited through the method of direct appointment."
(2.) THE expression "ministerial employee" has not been defined under the rules. Appendix 'A' to the rules, however, mentions 16 posts including Superintendent, Head Assistant, Legal Assistant, Accountant, Assistant/Head Assistant, Stenographer etc. under the heading "ministerial staff." It is, therefore, assumed that all the persons who are working against the 16 posts mentioned under the heading "ministerial staff" are ministerial employees and, as such, are eligible for promotion to the post of Labour Inspector. Appendix 'A' to the rules indicates the scales of pay - as initially fixed - of various posts governed by the rules. THE pay-scale for the post of Labour Inspector, which is a part of the field and technical staff, was Rs. 200-10-300/15-450/-. THE pay-scales of the relevant ministerial staff were as under :- JUDGEMENT_392_5_1994Html1.htm . The order of filling the vacancies in the cadre of Labour Inspectors by promotion / direct appointment/transfer under the rules is as under :- "(1) Labour Inspectors(out of a block of twenty vacancies) By promotion of Wage Inspectors - 1st, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 11th, 14th and 18th vacancy. By promotion of ministerial staff - 3rd, 9th, 13th, 17th and 19th vacancy. By direct appointment including transfer - 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 12th, 15th, 16th, and 20th vacancy." Rule 10 of the rules provide that persons appointed to the service shall remain on probation for a period of two years if recruited by direct appointment and one year if recruited otherwise. The second proviso to the rule, however, provides that the total period of probation including extension, if any, shall not exceed three years. Rule 12 of the rules provides that the seniority inter se of the members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the continuous length of service on a post in the cadre of the service.
(3.) THE question for our consideration is whether the Superintendents in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-450.00 (revised Rs. 2000-3500.00) can seek "promotion" to the post of Labour Inspector having the pay-scale of Rs. 200-450.00(revised Rs. 1500-2640.00). A learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has answered the question in the affirmative. THE Letters Patent Bench has upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgments of the High court. Naresh Kumar and Tarsem Kumar respondents in the appeals herein, were promoted to the post of Assistant in the Punjab Labour Department on 4/12/1975 and 17/02/1977 respectively. Tarsem Singh - appellant, joined the department as Stenographer on 15/03/1976. Roshan Lal - appellant, was promoted to the post of Assistant on 3/03/1977. It is not disputed that Naresh Kumar and Tarsem Kumar were senior to the appellants in the cadre of Assistant/Stenographer. The respondents were further promoted to the post of Superintendent on 22/07/1988. The appellants were promoted to the post of Labour Inspector Grade I under Rule 8(1)(a)(i) of the Rules on 8/05/1991. The respondents challenged the promotion of the appellants to the post of Labour Inspector by way of a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the post of Superintendent held by them, was a ministerial post and as such they being ministerial employees were entitled to be promoted to the post of Labour Inspector earlier to the appellants. As mentioned above, this contention of the respondents was accepted by the High Court.;