HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14852 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.08.2011 **** Harbans Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.14852 & 15099 of 2010 as common issues are involved. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.14852 of 2010. (2). The petitioner joined the services of the respondent- Department as Clerk 14.05.1969. He was promoted as Assistant on 28.08.1983 followed by further promotion as Superintendent Gr-II on 24.10.2003. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.2005. (3). The petitioner while in service made a representation to fix his pay at par with his junior (Tejinder Singh) and his claim was accepted on 23.12.1993. The petitioner thereafter claimed Proficiency Step up on completion of 8 years’ CWP No.14852 of 2010.doc - 2 – service w.e.f. 29.10.1993. The said benefit was granted to him and he continued to draw pay accordingly till his retirement. The petitioner’s retiral dues were also released keeping in view the last pay drawn by him as Superintendent Gr-II. (4). It appears that the Accountant General, Punjab raised some objection in the pension case of Rangil Singh who also retired as Superintendent Gr-II w.e.f. 31.01.2009 pointing out that the Proficiency Step-up was wrongly granted to him. The said objection led to the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner also on the plea that he has got double benefit, namely, firstly by bringing his pay at par with Tejinder Singh and thereafter towards Proficiency Step up with a retrospective date. The objection is stated to be based upon the Government instructions dated 01.12.1988 (Annexure R1). (5). The petitioner gave his reply (Annexure P4), however, without any reference to the explanation, the impugned order dated 05.08.2010 (Annexure P5) has been passed re- fixing the petitioner’s pay/pension to his disadvantage. (6). The respondents in their reply/affidavit maintain that the impugned order has been rightly passed. The precise plea taken by the respondents finds mention in preliminary submission No.1, which reads as follows:- 2 CWP No.14852 of 2010.doc - 3 – “That the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of direction for quashing the order dated 5.8.2010 Annexure P/5 passed by the answering respondent vide which the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed. In this regard it is submitted that the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the year 1993 with the respondent department. On 1.4.1993 one of his juniors, Sh. Tejinder Singh was given the benefit of Proficiency step up after completing eight years of service in the same cadre. Due to this proficiency step up to Sh. Tejinder Singh, petitioner’s pay on 1.4.1993 became less as compared to his junior Sh. Tejinder Singh. The petitioner though senior to Sh. Tejinder Singh became entitled for eight years proficiency step up later than Sh. Tejinder Singh due to the fact that he was placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.600-1120 from the pay scale of 570-1080 w.e.f. 29.10.1985 and got the benefit of one increment. As per instructions dated 1.12.1988 (copy of the instructions dated 1.12.1988 is annexed as Annexure R1) the period of 8 years service is to be counted from the date when the petitioner was promoted in the higher pay scale. Whereas his junior Sh. Tejinder Singh was working in the pay scale of 570-1080 from 1.4.1985 on regular basis and his 8 years proficiency became due on 1.4.1993. Due to the benefit of this Proficiency the pay of Sh. Tejinder Singh became higher as compared to his senior, the petitioner. The petitioner represented to the department to make his pay at par with his junior w.e.f. 1.4.1993. The Department by accepting his request allowed him the benefit of pay equal to Shri Tejinder Singh. Sh. Harbans Lal further asked for proficiency step up on 3 CWP No.14852 of 2010.doc - 4 – completion of eight years of service in the same cadre on 29.10.1993 and he was given the benefit of proficiency step up with effect from 29.10.1993.” (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no denial to the fact that Tejinder Singh was junior to the petitioner. The said Tejinder Singh was drawing higher pay than the petitioner giving rise to the pay anomaly and the petitioner was entitled to be brought up at par with his junior(s) unless there was some justification for the grant of higher pay to the junior. No such justification has been given by the respondents. Similarly, the granting of Proficiency Step up on completion of 8 years’ service has no relevance with the removal of pay anomaly. Both these aspects are missing in the impugned order which is totally cryptic and non-speaking. (8). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order 05.08.2010 (Annexure P5) is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the respondents are direct to grant/release all consequential benefits to the petitioner. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 10.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4