Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Chander & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 18 May, 2009
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP Nos.3504, 3580, 14563 of 1989, 3081 & 9604 of 1990 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 18.5.2009
1.CWP No.3504 of 1989
Ramesh Chander & Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Others ...Respondents
2.CWP No.3580 of 1989
Mrs.Asha Rani & Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Others ...Respondents
3.CWP No.14563 of 1989
Mrs.Chander Prabha & Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Others ...Respondents
4.CWP No.3081 of 1990
Santosh Soni & Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Others ...Respondents
5.9604 of 1990
Inder Singh & Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Others ...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: None for the petitioner
Mr.Yatinder Sharma, AAG, Punjab
CWP Nos.3504, 3580, 14563 of 1989, 3081 & 9604 of 1990 2
PERMOD KOHLI,J.
This order will dispose of CWP Nos.3504, 3580, 14563 of 1989, 3081 & 9604 of 1990 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions.
Some of the petitioners in these petitions were ad hoc employees as on 8.2.1978 and regularized thereafter whereas others were permanent/regular employees as on the aforesaid date. In the year 1978, Punjab Government employees under the aegis of Punjab Subordinate Services Federation served a notice to the Government for a mass strike on 8.2.1978. The Government also decided to take stern action against the striking employees and to reward those who did not participate in the strike which was scheduled to be held on 8.2.1978. There is specific averment in all the petitions that the petitioners decided not to join the strike. A large number of employees participated in the proposed mass strike. The petitioners in these petitions did not participate in the strike. State government vide its letter No. 4548-2PP-78 dated 8.2.1978 notified grant of benefit of one premature increment in the pay scale to such employees who did not participate in the strike. The relevant extract from the said letter reads as under:-
"i)They will be granted one premature increment in the scale of pay in which they were working on 8th February, 1978 by operation of rule 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. This increment will be effective from 8th February, 1978 and will not disturb the date of normal increment which would be admissible on the due date.
CWP Nos.3504, 3580, 14563 of 1989, 3081 & 9604 of 1990 3 The above decision regarding the grant of premature increment will not be applicable to those who had reached the maximum of the scale of pay before 8th February, 1978. Further the grant of this premature increment will not mean crossing of efficiency bar automatically. In other words in cases where the grant of the aforesaid premature increment would involve crossing of efficiency bar it will be released only after the formal decision in the prescribed manner in regard to the crossing of efficiency bar is taken.
AND
ii)A letter of appreciation may be issued to all such employees who did not resort to strike on 8th February, 1978 by appointing authority concerned in the enclosed form."
This letter was challenged, but finally upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The State Government thereafter issued various clarificatory letters extending the benefits to various categories of employees. Admittedly, the petitioners did not participate in the strike. In case of those who were working on ad hoc basis, the stand of the respondents is that the benefit was not meant for the ad hoc or work-charge employees. It is, however, stated that in case of all such employees whose services are to be regularized with effect from 8.2.1978, the process of regularization is still pending and they will be allowed the benefit of regularization as and when the process of regularization is completed and in case of the employees, who were not entitled to be regularized, they are not CWP Nos.3504, 3580, 14563 of 1989, 3081 & 9604 of 1990 4 entitled to the benefit of premature increment. In case of such employees who were either on medical or maternity leave as on the aforesaid crucial date i.e. 8th February, 1978, the stand of the respondents is that since they were on medical/maternity leave, they cannot claim the benefit of premature increment.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is admitted position that the petitioners did not participate in the strike. Once the ad hoc employees were in service and they did not participate in the strike, they cannot be discriminated against those who were regular employees and did not participate in the strike. Ad hoc employee is an employee and had the complete liberty to participate in the strike, but they chose not to do so. They cannot be deprived of the benefit which otherwise has been allowed to all Punjab Government employees. In so far the employees who were either on maternity leave or medical leave, though they had no occasion to attend the office, but they could have at least joined the striking employees even while on leave. It is not the stand of the respondents that such petitioners or any one of them joined with the striking employees. Since they were on leave, their participation/non- participation from the point of attendance cannot be decided, but the benefit should go to such employees.
In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to release one premature increment for non-participation in the strike on 8th February, 1978 to all these petitioners irrespective of the fact whether they were ad hoc employees on the relevant date or on maternity leave or medical leave. This is subject to the condition that ad hoc employees were in regular pay scale. Let the benefit accruing to the CWP Nos.3504, 3580, 14563 of 1989, 3081 & 9604 of 1990 5 petitioners be released within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the competent authority.
A copy of this order be placed on record on each concerned file.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 18.5.2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES