Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Sharma And Others vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 4 July, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.23731 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.23731 of 2011 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 4.7.2013
Virender Sharma and others PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri D.S.Gurna, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.L.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the orders Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6 pertaining to each of the petitiones be quashed.
The petitioners are working as Internal Auditors with the respondent/ Corporation since 1997. According to the instructions which are prevailing in the Corporation, the employees are entitled to the time-bound promotional scale after they render the service of 9 years and 16 years.
Undeniably, all the petitioners were granted this benefit after completion of 9 years of service. Barely six months thereafter, they were offered the promotion of Revenue Accountant which is a higher post but the petitioners C.W.P. No.23731 of 2011 -2- requested that they be permitted to forego the said promotion which request was accepted by the respondents.
Subsequently, the impugned order has been passed withdrawing the benefit of the time bound promotional scale granted to the petitioners with effect from the date when they refused the promotion which is now the cause of grievance to the petitioners.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this benefit of pay scale once granted to them, could not be withdrawn on a subsequent offer of promotion. It has further been contended that they were certainly within their rights to forego the promotion.
The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who has stated that the impugned order is just and fair considering the fact that the benefit was withdrawn from the date when the petitioners refused promotion and not from the date when they were granted this benefit. It has further been stated that the petitioners cannot be permitted the higher scale without shouldering the additional responsibility of a promotional post.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The time-bound promotion scheme introduced by the respondents is obviously an attempt to ensure that the employees do not stagnate on a given post for an inordinately long period. The period of 9 years and 16 years would therefore, suggest grant of a promotional benefit in terms of pay periodically. Undeniably, the petitiones were granted this benefit after serving the Corporation and they were not granted the benefit of promotion to the higher post. The offer of promotion was made subsequent to the grant of benefit of the scheme after a service of 9 years rendered by the petitioners. In this eventuality, the respondents could not justifiably withdraw the benefit earlier granted to the petitioners on C.W.P. No.23731 of 2011 -3- account of lack of promotional avenues. They would, however, be justified in their approach of holding the refusal of the petitioners to accept a promotional offer if the scheme is implemented subsequently and after a lapse of 16 years of service. But once the benefit has been granted on account of non-availability of a promotional avenue, which is the intended purpose of the scheme, subsequent offer of promotion cannot be a ground to withdraw the earlier benefit even if the petitioners refuse the promotional offer which in any case has been accepted by the respondents themselves. The matter has already been somewhat dealt with in C.W.P. No.2587 of 2009 titled Rattan Chand v. P.S.E.B. decided on 12.8.2010 which decision was sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the promotional offer was given at a belated stage and at a point when the petitioners therein were on the verge of retirement which is distinct from the facts of the instant case where the offer of promotion came shortly after the grant of benefit pursuant to the scheme.
In the considered opinion of this Court, this would not make any difference to the general proposition of law espoused above in Rattan Chand's case (supra).
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6 are set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to the aforesaid.
(MAHESH GROVER)
July 4, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO