Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 February, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 15103 of 2010 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15103 of 2010
Date of Decision: 05.02.2013
Gurcharan Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
............ Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr.M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for the respondents.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion as Headmasters/Lecturers from the date of acquiring graduation/post-graduation qualifications as envisaged in the Statutory Rules with a further prayer that directions may be issued to the respondent-department to grant one increment to the petitioners for higher responsibility under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I. Petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that they were posted as Teachers Hindi and Punjabi and were part of the C & V cadre. On promotion to the higher post of Master the pay scale, which the petitioners were already drawing and that of the Masters was the same and, CWP No. 15103 of 2010 -2- therefore, in the light of their promotion and they having been assumed higher responsibility, were entitled to grant of one additional increment as per Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I. It is asserted that the petitioners have not been granted the said benefit. Reliance for claiming the said benefit is placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 270 of 2012 titled 'the State of Punjab and others vs. Balbir Singh and others', decided on 14.8.2012, wherein it has been held that the grant of different pay scales for Art and Craft and Language Teachers vide notification dated 17.2.1989 is legal and valid and, therefore, the counsel contends that the petitioners are entitled to the higher responsibility benefits by grant of one additional increment as per Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioners on their promotion to the post of Masters/Mistresses are not entitled to the grant of the said increment as has been claimed by them, as they do not assume higher responsibility. It has been asserted that as per the Punjab Government notification dated 22.8.2006, petitioners are not entitled to the said benefit. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 3790 of 2006 titled Smt. Neelam Bali and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 6.3.2009. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The claim, as made by the petitioners, is based upon an assertion that they have assumed charge of the higher post with higher CWP No. 15103 of 2010 -3- responsibility on their promotion and, therefore, are entitled to one additioinal increment as per Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I. The said assertion of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in the light of the authoritative judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Neelam Bali's case (supra) where this plea has been raised by the petitioners and the claim projected therein stands rejected vide judgment dated 6.3.2009. Said judgment is applicable to the case in hand and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
As regards the reliance made by the counsel for the petitioners in the judgment in LPA No. 270 of 2012 titled the State of Punjab and others vs. Balbir Singh and others, the said judgment was dealing with the different notification dated 17.2.1989, which again is based upon different set of claims than the one which is set out by the petitioners herein. The issue therein was over the validity of the notification dated 17.2.1989 issued by the Government of Punjab revising pay scales of the Teaching Staff of the Education Department issued under the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, which provided for different pay scales for a composite group of employees of the Education Department holding the posts of "Art & Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers" on the one hand and another group of language teachers imparting education in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Sanskrit. This distinction carved out vide the said notification dated 17.2.1989 was quashed by the learned Single Judge, which has been upheld by the LPA Bench in the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab. The claim being different and the issue involved also being different, the said judgment could not be made applicable to the case in hand.
CWP No. 15103 of 2010 -4-
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
05.02.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE