Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. versus V.N.SHARMA

Decided
5 September 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 116 · 1994 INSC 356

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 117, margin B

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 High Court in Civil W.P. No. 3081of1993 dated January 31, 1994. The appellant made statutory regulations titled The Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay Regulations, 1988) Which have come into force on 1st of January, 1988. 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 higher post shall be allewed 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 regulations have come to into force. The non obstante clause and also regulation 3 clearly postulates 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 form service we decline to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The Civil Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. G.N. Appeal disposed of.

p. 117, margin C