Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tej Ram Garg vs Punjab & Haryana High Court And Others on 6 September, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 of 2011
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 06, 2012
Tej Ram Garg .......Petitioner
Versus
Punjab & Haryana High Court and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents 1 and 3.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
2. The petitioner retired from the Office of the District & Sessions Judge (Vig.) Punjab, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh as Reader upon attaining the age of super-annuation on 31.8.2007. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 14.12.2009, Annexure P9, whereby his application for grant of the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter to be referred as 'ACP Scheme') upon completion of 4,9 & 14 years of service in terms of his option dated 4.12.2007 has been declined.
3. The undisputed facts are that vide circular dated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 of 2011 2 3.11.2006 issued by the Government of Punjab, the benefit of ACP Scheme to the employees upon completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service in the cadre had been extended. In terms thereof, an employee was to submit an option within two months from the date of issue of such circular as to whether he wants to continue with the existing ACP Scheme of 8,16,24 and 32 years or to avail of the benefit of the new Scheme. Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.8.2007, the date for submission of such option was extended by the State Government for a period of one month from the date of issue of such letter. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the letter dated 22.8.2007 was never brought to his notice and in the meantime, he retired on 31.8.2007. It has been asserted that it was only on 3.12.2007 that the petitioner came in knowledge of the letter dated 22.8.2007 and he immediately thereafter submitted his option for the ACP Scheme of 4,9 and 14 years of service on 4.12.2007. The petitioner thereafter has been repeatedly filing representations to consider his claim for the grant of ACP benefit in terms of circular dated 3.11.2006.
4. Apparently, the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the State Government, but the same was returned back with the observation that in the absence of any proof as regards delay, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. The petitioner thereupon yet again submitted representations to the Office of respondent No.3 to re-send his case to the Government with the requisite documents so as to substantiate the fact that there had been no delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting his option.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 of 2011 3
5. The precise grievance of the petitioner that rather than forwarding his claim for the grant of ACP benefit, respondent No.3 in terms of impugned order dated 14.12.2009 has chosen to decline the application submitted by him.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3, a stand has been taken that the State Government had introduced the ACP Scheme dated 3.11.2006 in terms of which the employees were required to submit their option within two months from the date of issue of such letter and the petitioner had not exercised the option within the stipulated period. It has further been stated that the Government thereafter in terms of letter dated 22.8.2007 had extended the date for submission of the option by one month but the petitioner had chosen not to opt for the ACP Scheme within the extended period and as such, the claim raised in the present petition was inadmissible.
7. I find the stand taken on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3 to be wholly untenable. There is no denial to the fact that vide letter dated 12.11.2008 issued from the office of respondent No.3 and addressed to the Registrar (General) of this Court, a clarification had been submitted as regards the delay in receiving of the option of the petitioner for getting benefit of the ACP Scheme dated 3.11.2006. In such clarification dated 12.11.2008, Annexure P6, respondent No.3 had categorically admitted that the communication dated 22.8.2007 whereby extension of one month had been granted by the State Government for exercise of option, had been received in the office of respondent No.3 only on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 of 2011 4 12.9.2007 i.e. after the date of super-annuation of the petitioner. In the clarification at Annexure P6, it has also been admitted that the letter regarding extension of time for exercise of option could not be brought to the notice of the petitioner on account of an inadvertence by the office of respondent No.3.
8. Every executive action and administrative decision taken by the State/State instrumentalities would have to pass the test of fairness on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I find that the action of respondent No.3 in declining the application of the petitioner for the grant of ACP benefit in terms of circular dated 3.11.2006 smacks of arbitrariness. On the one hand, there is a clear admission on the part of respondent No.3 in terms of clarification dated 12.11.2008, Annexure P6, that the letter dated 22.8.2007 granting extension of period for exercise of option could not be brought to the notice of the petitioner on account of inadvertence, but, on the other hand, in the reply submitted before this Court, fault is sought to be attributed to the petitioner in terms of not having exercised the option within the stipulated period. Such stand cannot be appreciated.
9. The conduct of the petitioner is without blemish. Immediately upon coming into knowledge as regards the communication dated 22.8.2007 on 3.12.2007, the petitioner submitted his option on the very next date i.e. 4.12.2007. The financial benefits in pursuance to a beneficial ACP Scheme cannot be denied to an employee upon such whimsical stand taken by the respondent-authorities.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 of 2011 5 dated 14.12.2009, Annexure P9, is quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to take up the matter with the State Government forthwith for the release of financial benefits under the ACP Scheme issued vide circular dated 3.11.2006 in the light of the option dated 4.12.2007 submitted by the petitioner. It is further directed that the State Government shall consider and process the claim of the petitioner for the grant of ACP benefit under the Scheme dated 3.11.2006 and the objection regarding any delay in exercising of his option would not stand in the way of the petitioner for grant of benefit, if he is otherwise found eligible for the same. In the eventuality of the petitioner being found entitled to the grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme dated 3.11.2006, he would not be granted any arrears but his pay be fixed notionally and the revised pensionary benefits be calculated thereupon.
11. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
SEPTEMBER 06, 2012 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No