Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Raj Kanwal vs State Of Punjab on 17 April, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13232 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of decision:17.04.2012
Shri Raj Kanwal, Clerk, Office of 1-Chandigarh Air Squadron NCC
(Education Department), UT, Chandigarh, and others.
...Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab, through the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab
(Civil Secretariat), Chandigarh.
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. There is no representation for the petitioners. The counsel for the respondent-State is present. I have proceeded to examine the case on the basis of records and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent and disposed off the case on merits.
2. The petitioners, who occupied the non-gazetted post in Chandigarh Administration on deputation from the Punjab Government, seek for parity in treatment for being given premature Civil Writ Petition No.13232 of 1990 (O&M) -2- increment as was done to the Punjab Government employees, who did not participate in the general strike that was called by the employees of the Punjab Government on 08.02.1978. The Government had extended the premature increment also to employees of the Punjab Government, who had been sent on deputation to BBMB. The petitioners' case is that the discrimination practiced by the State in excluding the persons like the petitioners, who had sent on deputation to Chandigarh Administration with persons, who had been on deputation with BBMB, was bad in law.
2. The Government would explain in its reply that the persons, who had been sent on deputation to Chandigarh Administration, got all the benefits with the orders of the Central Government and not with the orders of the Punjab Government itself and that the deputationists had been given the postings on their voluntary concurrence and they were not entitled to be given any premature increment, especially when there was no call from the non-gazetted employees of Punjab Government, who were on deputation to the Chandigarh Administration to go on strike. They would also explain the fact that the employees sent on deputation to BBMB were accorded premature increment, cannot avail to the petitioners also a similar incentive, since the employees on deputation to the Chandigarh Administration and the employees of BBMB could not be treated at par. The increment had been given for BBMB deputationists on a proposal having been made from Civil Writ Petition No.13232 of 1990 (O&M) -3- BBMB authorities which had agreed to undertake the financial burden for giving the benefits to the employees but no such proposal had been given by the Chandigarh Administration to the Punjab Government.
3. I find no illegal discrimination as the petitioners contend for. Rule 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Part-I, Volume-I, states that any general or special order that may be made by the competent authority to grant a premature increment must always be scrutinized with "special jealousy" (sic), as it is contrary to the principle of time scale of pay to grant an increment before it is due. The purport of this Rule is to construe a benefit of premature increment restrictively and to apply only to serve the object for which the incentive is given. In this case, the benefit was to reward the persons, who had resisted from the call of general strike that was afflicting the State service. The persons, who had been sent on deputation to Chandigarh Administration, had no such dilemma and it is pointed out by the respondent that there had been no call by the non-gazetted employees of Punjab Government on deputation of Chandigarh Administration to participate in the strike. The benefit of such incentive cannot, therefore, be given across the board also to undeserving classes.
4. The decision not to give the benefit to the deputationists of Chandigarh Administration was, therefore, perfectly justified and the clarification issued to that effect was also in keeping with the Civil Writ Petition No.13232 of 1990 (O&M) -4- tenor of Rule 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, referred to above. The claim made in the writ petition is, therefore, untenable and it is dismissed as such.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.04.2012 sanjeev