Dismissed

Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2012CWP/6257/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the withdrawal of proficiency step-up benefits granted to work-regularized employees. The Court dismissed the petition relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding the non-countability of work-charged service for promotion/increment purposes.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; respondents directed not to effect recovery from petitioners if any.

Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.6257 of 1994

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.6257 of 1994 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 5.7.2012

¶6

Jarnail Singh and others

¶7

........ Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Punjab and others

¶10

........ Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶12

PRESENT: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Munish Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

R.P. NAGRATH, J.

¶15

This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of direction to the respondents not to withdraw the benefit of Proficiency step-ups granted to the petitioners on completion of their 8/18 years of service in view of the instructions issued by the State government after counting the period of service rendered by the petitioners on work charged basis.

¶16

The petitioners initially were appointed as Pump Operators/Painter/Mali-cum-Chowkidar/Fitters Cooli Sewer Man etc. in Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) on work charged basis on different dates. Their services were lateron regularized as such. Before regularization of their services the petitioners served the

¶17

CWP No.6257 of 1994 -2-

¶18

respondents on work charged basis for different periods ranging from 5 years to 10 years. On regularization of the services of the petitioners, the benefit of the period of service rendered by them on work charged basis before their regularization was granted to them. The petitioners were given one annual increment for each completed period of service even on work charged basis and at the time of regularization of their services, the total services rendered by the petitioners on work charged basis was counted and their pay was accordingly fixed. It is averred in the petition that pay scales of Punjab Government employees were revised and every time the pay of the petitioners was fixed in the revised scale of pay after counting total service rendered by them including work charged basis.

¶19

On the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the pay scales of Punjab Government employees including that of the petitioners have been revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the Government decided that besides the grant of regular annual increments, one additional increment on each occasion on completion of 8 years and 18 years of service on or after 1.1.1986 in the form of proficiency step ups be also granted (Annexure P-1). On the revision of pay scales of the employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the petitioners have also been granted revised pay scale and have also been granted the benefit of additional increment in the form of proficiency step-ups on completion of their 8 and 18 years of service after counting the period of service rendered by them on work charges basis. It is averred in the petition that suddenly, the respondents decided vide letter dated 9.8.1990 (Annexure P-2) to withdraw the benefit of additional increments granted to the petitioners

¶20

CWP No.6257 of 1994

¶21

-3-

¶22

in the form of proficiency step ups and reduced the salary of the petitioners accordingly on the ground that the period of service rendered by the petitioners on work charged basis cannot be counted for calculating the period of 8 and 18 years of service.

¶23

Mr. Munish Chaudhary, AAG Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

At the outset, learned counsel for the parties have stated that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res-integra as the similar issue came up for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and others vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others, (2009) 3 SCC 661 wherein their Lordships in para 21 held as under:

¶25

“21. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound promotional scales/promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years' regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service.”

¶26

It is not disputed that a similar matter was earlier decided in CWP No. 7558 of 1991, on 22.4.2009, by this Court (Sarwan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) and the finding based on exactly same facts has been returned against the petitioners.

¶27

Keeping in view the above well settled propositions of law

¶28

-4-

¶29

CWP No.6257 of 1994

¶30

the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

However, the respondents are directed to not to effect the

¶33

recovery from the petitioners, if any.

¶34

July 5, 2012 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE

Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab Thr'H SHO

Sandeep @ Bittu Vs State of Haryana, Thr'H Supdt. of Police, Ambala

Hem Chander Bansal and Anr. Vs Confed Haryana Thr'H Its Managing Director, Chd

Devi Dayal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harinder Singh & Ors. Vs Pseb Patiala & Ors.

Kulbhushan through Lr Harash Bala Vs State of Haryana & Ors.