Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hansa Dutt And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 May, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CWP No. 6997of 1996 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 6997 of 1996
Date of decision: May 14,2014
Hansa Dutt and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.K.L.Arora,Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Sushant Maini,Deputy Advocate General,Punjab
None for respondent No.3.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to quash Order dated 14.3.1996, Annexure P4 and release them the deputation allowance and also release the second proficiency step up on completion of 18 years of service.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had joined the service of respondents No. 1 and 2 on work charge basis. For grant of proficiency step up on completion of 18 years of service of the petitioners, the work charge service rendered by the petitioners was liable to be counted. Further petitioners were entitled to receive deputation allowance in view of Rule 10.21(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the work charge service rendered by the petitioners was not liable to be counted for proficiency step up. In this regard, learned Raj Kumari 2014.05.16 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 6997of 1996 2 State counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board vs Jagjiwan Ram and others 2009 (5)SLR 499 wherein it was held as under:-
"A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes it clear that the benefit of time bound promotional scales was to be given to the employees only on their completing 9/16 years regular service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional increments could be given only on completion of 23 years regular service. The use of the term `regular service' in various paragraphs of the scheme shows that service rendered by an employee after regular appointment could only be counted for computation of 9/16/23 years service and the service of a temporary, adhoc or work charged employee cannot be counted for extending the benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments. If the Board intended that total service rendered by the employees irrespective of their mode of recruitment and status should be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments, then instead of using the expression `9/16 years regular service' or `23 years regular service', the concerned authority would have used the expression `9/16 years service' or `23 years service'. However, the fact of the matter is that the scheme in its plainest term embodies the requirement of 9/16 years regular service or 23 years regular service as a condition for Raj Kumari grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional 2014.05.16 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 6997of 1996 3 increments as the case may be. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound promotional scales/ promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service."
Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to deputation allowance as at the time of their appointment on deputation vide Annexure R3, it had been specifically stated that they would not be entitled to receive any deputation allowance. Petitioners never raised any grievance in this regard when the order Annexure P3 dated 8.10.1992, before filing the writ petition in the year 1996.
The date of joining of the petitioner on work charge basis and on regular basis as reproduced in para 3 of the petition reads as under:-
Sr.No Name and Designation D.O.J on work Date when 5 years charge basis completed=regular 1 Karam Singh,Chowkidar 07/05/77 01/04/83 2 Parkash Singh,Chowkidar 23.4.78 01/04/84 3 Ram Surat,Beldar 06/10/76 01/04/82 4 Hansa Dutt, Beldar 16.6.77 01/04/83 The first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the service rendered by the petitioners on the work charge basis was liable to be counted for grant of proficiency step up, is liable to be rejected in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the Punjab State Electricity Board case (supra). As per the said Raj Kumari 2014.05.16 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 6997of 1996 4 decision, the service of an employee rendered on work chrage basis cannot be counted for extending the benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments.
So far as the relief claimed by the petitioners qua release of deputation allowance is concerned, petitioners have placed reliance on Rule 10.21(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The said Rule reads as under:-
"The grant of deputation allowance to Punjab Government employees who are transferred on deputation or to foregin service to other State Governments or the Central Government or bodies (incorporated or not), wholly or substantially owned and controlled by Government, provided the transfer is outside the regular line and is in the public interest shall be regulated as under:-
(1)The deputation allowance shall be at the uniform rate of ten percent of the employee's basic pay and shall be subject to a maximum of three hundred rupees per mensum."
As per order dated 8.10.1992,Annexure R3, no deputation allowance was to be paid to the employees who were sent on deputation to Punjab Housing and Development Board Chandigarh by Punjab PWD Public Health.
Although, as per Rule 10.21(2), deputation allowance is to be allowed to an employee who is transferred on deputation but in the present case, petitioners were sent on deputation to Punjab Raj Kumari Housing and Development Board Chandigarh vide order dated 2014.05.16 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 6997of 1996 5 8.10.1992 Annexure R3 wherein it was specifically provided that no deputation allowance would be paid to them. Petitioners accepted the terms of Annexure R3 and joined the Housing Board on deputation. Although, petitioners joined in the year 1992 in pursuance to Annexure R3 with the Housing Board but they have claimed deputation allowance by filing the writ petition in the year 1996. In para 11 of the petition, it has been averred that the petitioners had been sent on deputation in public interest, although, they were not interested in joining the service of respondent No.3 Housing Board and had been sent on deputation against their Will. However, there is nothing on record that the petitioners had immediately objected to their deputation with the Housing Corporation before filing the present writ petition.
Thus, for the first time, petitioners have raised a grievance that they were entitled to deputation allowance after four years of passing of the order Annexure R3, although, they had joined the Housing Board on deputation in pursuance to order Annexure R3 dated 8.10.1992. Since as per the terms of Annexure R3, it had been specifically provided that no deputation allowance would be paid, the claim of the petitioners qua grant of deputation allowance is liable to be rejected. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 14, 2014 arya Raj Kumari 2014.05.16 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document