Dismissed

Bhim Sain v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2015RSA/4497/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal filed by an appellant against a lower court order that upheld a departmental decision withdrawing a wrongly allowed bunching increment. The court held the lower court's judgment required no interference.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order that validated the department's withdrawal of the wrong increment.

Bhim Sain Vs State of Punjab etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

R.S.A No. 4497 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A No. 4497 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 01.07.2015

Bhim Sain

..Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present:Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Mr. Vaibhav Narang, DAG, Punjab

¶12

RITU BAHRI J.

¶13

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment

¶14

dated 05.05.2010 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Barnala whereby the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents (for short 'the respondents') against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Barnala was partly allowed.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant (for short 'the appellant') was posted as Lecturer Commerce, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sandhu Patti, Barnala and was promoted as Lecturer

¶16

in Commerce by way of promotion on 23.12.1995. The pay scale of

¶17

GAURAV 2015.08.06 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

R.S.A No. 4497 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

the appellant was revised as per the policy known as revised pay rules 1998. The appellant was awarded an increment of bunching under PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES (Revised Pay Rules) 1998 (for short 'the Rules) by the School Principal inadvertantly against the rules and instructions issued by the department (R-1). The appellant did not fulfill the requisite conditions as laid down under Rule 7 of the Rules where a government employee has to complete at least three years service in a cadre (three consecutive stages in pre-existing scale on 01.01.1996) in an existing scale and gets fixed (bunched) in the revised scale on the same very stage on 01.01.1996 The appellant after being promoted as Lecturer on 23.12.1995 completed merely 7-8 days in a Lecturer Cadre on 01.01.1996 and thus does not fulfill the conditions as laid down there for bunching increment. The trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant vide order dated 11.12.2007 and held that letter dated 03.10.2005 is null and void.

¶21

The respondents filed appeal against this order and the appellate Court modified the order of the trial Court by holding that the department can proceed in the matter in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

¶22

After passing of the above said order, the department

¶23

GAURAV 2015.08.06 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

-3-

¶25

R.S.A No. 4497 of 2010 (O&M)

¶26

considered the claim of the appellant under rules vide order dated 04.06.2010 by affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent wherein the department has withdrawn the wrong increment of bunching allowed to the appellant earlier by the department inadvertently and the department implemented the appellate court judgment dated 05.05.2010 by its well speaking order dated 04.06.2010 (R-3). The suit filed by the appellant was time barred as he had filed the suit in the year 2006 i.e after a gap of 10 years and further also not sustainable under rules and instructions issued by the department.

¶27

R.S.A was admitted on 11.09.2012 and thereafter on 22.10.2013, it was directed by this Court that the benefits accruing to the appellant be given to him, as the State has never challenged the aforesaid finding. An affidavit dated 22.01.2014 has been filed by Major Singh, DEO (S) Barnala, a speaking order dated 04.06.2010 has been passed by the department by affording an opportunity to the appellant (R-3) and the department has withdraw the wrong increment of bunching to the appellant. The appellant was served with notice for re-fixation of wrong pay by office letter dated 28.05.2010 and the appellant gave reply to the said notice on 31.05.2010 which was found to be not satisfactory. The pay of the appellant was re-fixed as follow:-

¶28

GAURAV 2015.08.06 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

R.S.A No. 4497 of 2010 (O&M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

*22.12.1995*	*2060+20*
23.12.1995	*2060+20*
01/01/96	6400
01/02/96	6800 PIC
01/02/97	7000 PIC
01/02/98	7220
01/02/99	7440
01/02/2000	7660
01/02/2001	7880
01/02/2002	8100
01/02/2003	8375
01/02/2004	8650
01/02/2005	8925
01/02/2006	9200
01/02/2007	9475
01/02/2008	9750
01/02/2009	10025

¶32

The appellant was promoted as a lecturer on 23.12.1995.

¶33

He was given one promotion increment of Rs.20/- as evident from the above table. He was granted bunching of increment by the department under the rules which was against the rules and instructions issued by the department (R-1)

¶34

The appellant did not fulfill the requisite conditions as laid down under Rule 7 of the Rules where a government employee has to

¶35

complete at least three years service in a cadre (three consecutive

¶36

stages in pre-existing scale on 01.01.1996) in an existing scale and gets

¶37

GAURAV 2015.08.06 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

R.S.A No. 4497 of 2010 (O&M)

¶39

-5-

¶40

fixed (bunched) in the revised scale on the same very stage on 01.01.1996 The appellant after being promoted as Lecturer on

¶41

23.12.1995 completed merely 7-8 days in a Lecturer Cadre on 01.01.1996 and thus does not fulfill the conditions as laid down there for bunching increment.

¶42

Thereafter, a clarification was issued by State of Punjab vide notification dated 21.10.1998 which reads as under:-

¶43

Point Raised Clarification

¶44

Where for ensuring the benefits Since the pay of an employee only of at least one increment for in one existing scale can be taken three increments in the existing into consideration the benefit is scale, the increments are to to be to be counted from the stage at counted from the initial start of which the pay of an employee is the scale or from the stage at fixed on promotion in the existing which the pay of an employee is scale. fixed on promotion in the prerevised scale.

¶45

As per the notification, the bunching of an increment was

¶46

to be given to an employee who had at least completed three consecutive stages in pre-existing scale on 01.01.1996) in an existing scale.

¶47

Thereafter, the department while taking into consideration Annexure R-1 and R-2 had rightly passed order dated 04.06.2010 (R-3) withdrawing the bunching of increment given to the appellant.

¶48

GAURAV 2015.08.06 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

R.S.A No. 4497 of 2010 (O&M) -6-

¶50

After going through the detailed order passed by the department (R-3), the judgment dated 05.05.2010 passed by learned

¶51

Addl. District Judge, Barnala does not require any interference by this

¶52

Court.

¶53

Dismissed.

¶54

01.07.2015 ( RITU BAHRI ) G Arora JUDGE

¶55

GAURAV 2015.08.06 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bhim Sain v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Sain v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Saran Dass Uppal Vs Ajmer Singh

Amarjeet Talwar Vs State of Haryana

Dev Raj and Anr. Vs Gram Panchayat Nindana and Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Bhim Sain

Ram Nand Vs Chand Parkash Andors.

Shubhram @ Sube Singh Vs Mahender and Ors.