Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash Nagpal vs State Of Punjab on 6 July, 2012
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.7960 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of decision:06.07.2012
Om Parkash Nagpal, and others. ...Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab, through Secretary Education, Punjab, Chandigarh
and another.
....Respondents
II. Civil Writ Petition No.12667-A of 1990 (O&M)
Balkar Singh, and others. ...Petitioners
versus
The State of Punjab, through Secretary to Government Education
Department, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others.
....Respondents
III. Civil Writ Petition No.2606 of 1992 (O&M)
Harbhajan Singh, and others. ...Petitioners
versus
The State of Punjab, through Secretary to Government Punjab,
Department of Education, Chandigarh, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP
Nos.7960 and 12667-A of 1990.
Ms. Heena Talwar, Advocate, for Mr. R.K. Chopra,
Senior Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.2606 of
1992.
Mr. S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
----
Civil Writ Petition No.7960 of 1990 (O&M) -2-
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. CWP Nos.7960, 12667-A of 1990 and 2606 of 1992 address the same issue of the validity of the clarifications given through letter dated 01.09.1989 to the scheme announced by the Government on 01.12.1988 providing for proficiency step-up, who had completed 8/18 years of service on or after the appointed date. All the petitioners have a grievance that JBT teachers, who had obtained higher qualifications and who were given higher scales commensurate with higher qualification, had been denied the benefit of proficiency step up by the clarification given through letter dated 01.09.1989. The petitioners have a grievance that the proficiency step up which was granted as per the 3rd Pay Commission recommendations and brought through statutory rules provided under Article 309 cannot be whittled down by administrative instructions that completely denied the benefit given through an earlier notification dated 01.12.1988.
2. In response to the contentions raised by the petitioners, the statement has been filed only in CWP No.2606 of 1992. It has been explained that the idea of grant of proficiency step up itself is only to prevent stagnation and given incentive to a person, who had completed 8/18 years of service without any adverse remarks. If a Civil Writ Petition No.7960 of 1990 (O&M) -3- person had already been placed in a scale higher than the minimum of the scales provided under the proficiency step up, the question of applying proficiency step up again would not arise. The idea of proficiency step up itself is only for preventing stagnation and if an employee had come by some benefit that allowed for earning an increment earlier, the question of grant of proficiency step up would not arise.
3. I have noticed from the Registry that the grievance in these writ petitions have also been ventilated through other petitioners in CWP No.12381 of 1989, 12667, 7860, 5692 and 7866 of 1990. This Court has dismissed the writ petition in CWP No.12318 of 1989, but recovery has been stopped. All the other petitions have been disposed of on 13.03.1997 by directing the competent authorities to take a decision on the representations within 6 months. I have not the information about the nature of disposal of the representation. This is just to record the fact that there is no lesson to learn or principle to be applied from the decisions in other like cases.
4. All the writ petitions are dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.07.2012 sanjeev