Allowed

R.,S.Soni etc. v. Bbmb etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2012CWP/2056/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of proficiency step-up benefits for Class-I and II officers. The Bench held that benefits accrued prior to a subsequent clarificatory circular must not be withdrawn, denying recovery.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, holding that recovery of benefits already granted is not permitted and no issue of disentitlement arises for petitioners who claimed benefits before the clarificatory ord

R.,S.Soni etc. Vs Bbmb etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.2056 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 03 .04.2012

¶3

Dr. R.S. Soni, PMO, BBMB Hospital, Nangal, and others.

¶4

...Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Bhakra Beas Management Board, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Chairman, and another.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶14

----

¶15

K.Kannan, J.

¶16

The writ petition challenges the order withdrawing the benefit of proficiency step-up on completion of 8 years of service as illegal, having been passed without any opportunity of hearing and seeking for a restraint against any recovery for the alleged wrongful payment made to the petitioner in terms of ACP scales given to him.

¶17

The petition is at the instance of 14 doctors, who had been working in various hospitals at Nangal, Chandigarh, Rajpura, Sunder Nagar and Talwara. At the time of filing of the writ petition, all the petitioners except petitioner No.13 were still working. Petitioner No.13 had retired even at the time of the filing of the writ

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No.2056 of 2003 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

petition. The claim of the petitioners is based on the fact that Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short, BBMB) was following the pay pattern of the Government of Punjab upto 23.06.1992, after when the pay scales applicable to employees of Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, PSEB) were also extended to them. The Government of Punjab by its letter dated 01.12.1988 had allowed for one additional increment on every occasion after completion of 8 years and 18 years of service on or after 01.01.1986 in the form of proficiency step-up. The benefit of the instructions was extended to all the petitioners on completion of 8 and 18 years of service, who were Class-I and II officers. PSEB had also adopted similar policy as regards application of additional increment on completion of 8 and 18 years of service. On the basis of a clarification issued on 26.03.1990 by the Punjab Government, it was decided that the proficiency step-up would not be granted in cases where the pay structure already provided for 3 structures of pay, namely, time scale, senior scale and selection grade. This clarification had already been provided by PSEB by its letter dated 23.12.1994. In turn, it was also adopted by BBMB by its proceedings dated 01.04.1998. In CWP No.3397 of 1991, decided on 12.12.1991 titled as 'Beant Singh Bedi Versus State of Punjab

¶20

and others the question was raised as to whether the clarification issued by the Government of Punjab could have retrospective effect. The Bench held that the instructions of the Government of Punjab

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.2056 of 2003 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

could not be said to be clarificatory in nature. It observed that such of those persons, who had completed 18 years of service prior to 01.09.1989 were still continued to be governed by the original understanding of the ACP scheme providing for proficiency stepup. This decision of the learned single Judge appears to have been challenged before the Division Bench in LPA unsuccessfully and still later before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed on 04.01.1993.

¶23

The petitioners would submit in the writ petition that the cases of those employees, whose cases for proficiency step-up became due for consideration prior to 08.06.1990, had to be dealt with according to the instructions dated 05.01.1989. Since the proficiency step-up for all the petitioners fell due for consideration prior to the issue of instructions dated 08.06.1990, the benefits given under the earlier instructions could not be withdrawn. The petitioners had given initially representations against recovery action and had also issued a notice dated 11.06.2001. There was a direction from this Court in a writ petition in CWP No.842 of 2002, decided on 14.01.2002, titled as, 'Dr. R.S. Soni Versus Bhakra Beas

¶24

Management Board , that notice must be considered within 3 months. Pursuant to the order passed by the Court on 14.01.2002, the Board passed an order on 22.04.2002 rejecting the petitioners' claim. It is this order which is in challenge before this Court.

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No.2056 of 2003 (O&M) - 4 -

¶26

I would see this case is fully covered through the judgment rendered in Beant Singh Bedi's case , referred to above. In the impugned order, it is noted that the instructions of the Government dated 01.12.1988 providing for proficiency step-up subject to suitability besides the regular annual increments was to be given on completion of 8 and 18 years of service on or after 01.01.1986. This was accepted by both PSEB and BBMB. The State allocated employees were given the option while adopting the pay scales either to continue to draw the pay and allowances as admissible in their parent department or to opt for BBMB pay scales. Since the PSEB pay scales adopted in BBMB were on a better footing, the petitioners had not opted for BBMB pay scales. All the petitioners had been granted proficiency step-up in terms of office order No.138/PRC/Fin., dated 15.01.1989 read with PSEB instructions dated 23.12.1994 and adopted by BBMB by its letter dated 28.04.1995. When PSEB clarified that proficiency step-up will not be admissible to those Class-I and II officers, who had been given the structure of three scales of pay and the BBMB followed suit, recovery action were taken against the petitioners.

¶27

The point that is sought to be taken in the impugned order is that the BBMB and PSEB had adopted their own scales and if even the proficiency step-up was withdrawn as per the clarification issued by the PSEB, it was not possible to accept the plea that the benefit already given could not be withdrawn. I would

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No.2056 of 2003 (O&M) - 5 -

¶29

reject this contention for the only reason that the purported clarification by PSEB and affirmed by BBMB was verily the same instruction as how it was adopted by the Punjab Government. On the line of reasoning adopted in BBMB's case, I hold that they were not merely clarifications but stipulated a different form of reckoning of proficiency step-up. Consequently, if the petitioners had completed 8/18 years before 13.11.1998 when the clarificatory circular was issued, it should only be taken as governing all cases where the reckoning of 8/18 years had been completed only after the notification dated 13.11.1998. In respect of all other cases where the petitioners had come by benefit of proficiency step-up in terms of the original circular issued in the year 1989, it was irrelevant that they had three other scales in the manner referred to above. The stoppage of the benefits could be made only in respect of any case of an employee completing 8/18 years subsequent to the date when the so-called clarificatory order was issued. As regards, the petitioners, who had already claimed the benefits before the coming into force of the said orders, there shall be neither recovery nor an issue of dis-entitlement could ever arise.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.

¶31

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

¶32

03.04.2012 sanjeev

R.,S.Soni etc. v. Bbmb etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.,S.Soni etc. v. Bbmb etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurdas Singh & Ors. Vs Fci & Ors.

N.K. Sood Vs Food Corp of India and Others

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab