Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh Bedi & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 20 May, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
Civil Writ Petition No.16446 of 2010 (O&M) {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 20, 2013
Jaswinder Singh Bedi & others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.Ranjivan Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Punjab, vide which the claim of the petitioners for grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme as notified on 3.11.2006 (Annexure P-3) stands denied by stating that the benefit of the said instructions cannot be granted to the Junior Engineers to which category the petitioners belong.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that on 25.9.1998 (Annexure P-1), in pursuance to the recommendations Civil Writ Petition No.16446 of 2010 (O&M) {2} made by the 4th Punjab Pay Commission, Assured Career Progression Scheme was implemented, according to which on completion of 8/16/24/32 years of service, employees were entitled to the grant of increments/scales. Thereafter, notification dated 27.6.2000 was issued by the respondents for removal of anomalies in the pay scales of Junior Engineers, grant of Assured Career Progression, Class II status and designation as Assistant Engineer to a Junior Engineer in the State. According to this Scheme, petitioners were entitled to the next higher scale of `6400-10640 on completion of 8 years of service and on completion of 16 years of service in the same cadre as a Junior Engineer, the next higher pay scale of `7200-11320 with Class II Gazetted status and designation of Assistant Engineer and thereafter the subsequent benefit of the pay scales. Vide notification dated 3.11.2006, another Assured Career Progression Scheme was formulated by the respondents, according to which, on completion of 4/9/14 years of service in the cadre, an employee was entitled to the grant of the benefit as per the said Scheme. The said Scheme was optional and existing employees would give an option for the said Scheme within a period of two months. Out of 39 petitioners, 27 had opted for the said Scheme, which fact is admitted by the respondents in their additional affidavit, which has been filed in court and the others were given an assurance that as and when orders in relation to the persons, who had opted for the Scheme is received, they would also be granted the said Civil Writ Petition No.16446 of 2010 (O&M) {3} opportunity of change of option. The respondents instead of granting them the benefit of the Scheme had rejected the same vide order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that it is not applicable to the Junior Engineers. This, the counsel for the petitioners contends is not sustainable in the light of the fact that the Scheme dated 3.11.2006 is totally independent Scheme and has no connection with the earlier Scheme floated by the respondents dated 25.9.1998 and thereafter on 27.6.2000, vide which the anomalies as found in the earlier Scheme dated 25.9.1998 were removed. In any case, the said Scheme was optional and all the petitioners had either opted or were willing to opt for the said Scheme. The counsel, accordingly, contends that the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the new Scheme, which is floated in favour of the employees, which is optional. Contention has also been raised that Punjab Mandi Board had granted the benefit of the instructions dated 3.11.2006 to its Junior Engineers working therein. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioners have been discriminated against. Prayer has also been made for setting-aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has referred to the reply filed by the respondents and especially the additional affidavit dated 4.1.2013 filed by Shri Satya Parkash Gupta, under Secretary, Department of Personnel, to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme dated Civil Writ Petition No.16446 of 2010 (O&M) {4} 3.11.2006 in the light of the circular/letter dated 1.12.2011, which clearly states that those employees would not be governed by the ACP Scheme, which they were earlier mentioned. She, on this basis, contends that the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable and has rightly been rejected by the respondents.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Perusal of the instructions dated 25.9.1998 (Annexure P-
1) would show that the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission were implemented for Assured Career Progression Scheme. There being certain anomalies in giving effect to the same, the anomalies were removed vide a notification dated 27.6.2000 (Annexure P-2) qua the pay scales of Junior Engineers. Apart from granting them the ACP, Class II status and designation as Assistant Engineer was also granted on completion of 16 years of service apart from granting them the next higher pay scale of `6400-10640 on completion of 8 years service and `7200-11320 on completion of 16 years of service in the same cadre, i.e., Junior Engineer. Perusal of the Scheme dated 3.11.2006 would show that it is altogether independent Scheme, where the Assured Career Progression Scheme was made applicable on completion of 4/9/14 years of service in a cadre. This was totally different from the earlier Scheme with regard to the period for which the benefit would be claimed as per the said Scheme. In Civil Writ Petition No.16446 of 2010 (O&M) {5} any case, this Scheme, as per Clause-2 thereof, was made optional and all employees were given option to either continue in the existing Assured Career Progression Scheme after completion of 8/16/24/32 years service as provided under the Scheme dated 25.9.1998, which was further modified for Junior Engineers on 27.6.2000 or to opt under the 4/9/14 years Assured Career Progression Scheme. This clearly indicates that all employees had an option either to continue with the old Scheme or to opt for the new Scheme, which was now made applicable to the employees. Petitioners having opted for the said Scheme, which was published on 3.11.2006 were, therefore, entitled to the benefit under the said Scheme. That part, Junior Engineers working in the Punjab Mandi Board have already been granted the benefit of the Scheme dated 3.11.23006 and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be denied the same benefit.
Contention of the respondents that the claim of the petitioners would not be covered under the Scheme dated 3.11.2006 on the basis of the letter dated 1.12.2011 cannot sustain as the said letter is prospective in operation and in Para No.5 thereof, it is stated that as per the benefit conferred upon the employees as per the letter dated 1.12.2011, they would not be entitled to the benefit under any other Assured Career Progression Scheme issued by the Government, which further specified that the said revised pay scale would be effective from 1.12.2011, the date of the notification. This clearly shows that the said Scheme or revised pay scales were Civil Writ Petition No.16446 of 2010 (O&M) {6} applicable prospectively and the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit as claimed by them in the present writ petition on the basis of the letter dated 1.12.2011.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. Petitioners are held entitled to the benefit of the instructions dated 3.11.2006. The consequential benefits be released to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case of petitioners, who have not yet opted for the applicability of the Scheme dated 3.11.2006, must give their option within a period of one month from today and their claim be also considered and decided by the respondents as per the time stipulated here-in-above.
May 20, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE