increment as was done to the Punjab Government employees, who did not participate in the general strike that was called by the employees of the Punjab Government on 08.02.1978. The Government had extended the premature increment also to employees of the Punjab Government, who had been sent on deputation to BBMB. The petitioners' case is that the discrimination practiced by the State in excluding the persons like the petitioners, who had sent on deputation to Chandigarh Administration with persons, who had been on deputation with BBMB, was bad in law. 2. The Government would explain in its reply that the persons, who had been sent on deputation to Chandigarh Administration, got all the benefits with the orders of the Central Government and not with the orders of the Punjab Government itself and that the deputationists had been given the postings on their voluntary concurrence and they were not entitled to be given any premature increment, especially when there was no call from the non-gazetted employees of Punjab Government, who were on deputation to the Chandigarh Administration to go on strike. They would also explain the fact that the employees sent on deputation to BBMB were accorded premature increment, cannot avail to the petitioners also a similar incentive, since the employees on deputation to the Chandigarh Administration and the employees of BBMB could not be treated at par. The increment had been given for BBMB deputationists on a proposal having been made from
