This order allows two Letters Patent Appeals against previous writ dismissal orders. The Court relied on a subsequent judgment in associated appeals which restored special increments to work-charged employees, disposing of the current appeals accordingly.
The appeals are allowed; previous orders withdrawing benefits are set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: March 23, 2011
Balbir Singh
…Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…Respondents
2. LPA NO. 538 of 2011 (O&M)
Balbir Chand
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant(s).
M.M. KUMAR, J.
LPA Nos. 170 and 538 of 2011 (O&M)
2
“9. A bare perusal of Rule 10.8 makes it clear that the Chief Engineer has been clothed with the power to grant advance increments to the personnel borne on work-charged establishment, which could be granted even on initial appointment of the person against a post as well as during the course of his service. The Chief Engineer continues to enjoy this power till date. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the benefit of special increments, which was
LPA Nos. 170 and 538 of 2011 (O&M)
3
extended to various work-charged employees like the petitioner-appellants, did not require any sanction from any authority before its release to work-charged employees because the Chief Engineer is fully competent. We further find that the circular dated 5.8.1968 issued by the State of Punjab converting grant of special increments to cash rewards to its employees could not have been made applicable to the petitioner-appellants because prior to 1996 the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I Part-I were not applicable to them and they were to be governed by the Departmental Financial Rules. At stated above, under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules, the Chief Engineer was fully empowered to grant special increment to a person borne on work-charged establishment. It is also well settled principle of law that the executive instructions cannot override the powers of the authorities conferred upon them under the statutory Rules. Therefore, it is held that the Chief Engineer was competent to grant special increments under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules and the same could not have been withdrawn.
LPA Nos. 170 and 538 of 2011 (O&M)
4
The benefit of special increments is restored back to the petitioner-appellants.”
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(T.P.S. MANN) 23.3.2011 JUDGE
PKapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the current Letters Patent Appeals should be disposed of in view of the subsequent judgment dated 8.9.2010 in connected appeals.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Charan Dass and others v. State of PunjabReferred¶21
Charan Dass and others v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 5568 of 2008)
Charan Dass and others v. State of PunjabFollowed¶35
Charan Dass and others v. State of Punjab
Balbir Singh
State of Punjab
M.M. Kumar
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
