IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9986 of 2010 Date of decision : 27.07.2011 Satpal Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure P-13) vide which the pay of the petitioner has been sought to be reduced by withdrawing increments given to the petitioner and recovery is ordered to be effected from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner was initially inducted into the service of respondent- department as Assistant Superintendent on 03.09.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent Grade-II in the year 1996. He was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent Grade-I vide order dated 20.05.2003 (Annexure P-1/T). A perusal of Rule 10 of Punjab Prison State Service (Class-II) Rules, 1978 (herein after tobe referred as the 'Punjab Rules') envisages that member of the service are required to pass departmental examination within a period of two years from the date of their promotion and in the event of non- passing of examination, the Government can stop their annual increments till CWP No. 9986 of 2010 -2- they qualify the departmental examination. The proviso thereto, provides that the Government can exempt any category of class of persons from passing the departmental examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner cleared his departmental examination in the year 1982 and 983. Out of four papers, the petitioner passed two papers in the higher standard whereas two papers were passed by the petitioner in lower standard. As per the requirement of the rules, all the papers have to be passed in higher standard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the recovery which is sought to be effected from the petitioner on account of increments released to him from the date of promotion uptil 2007 is also wrong as he has been granted annual increments by the department on its own and the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to his representation (Annexure P-8) which he has made to the respondent authorities to grant him exemption from passing the departmental examination as allowed to similarly situated employees, the petitioner also highlighted that he had been posted at different jails during terrorism days and he worked bravely with courage and discharge his duties without any fear. The petitioner also stated that he received threats from various terrorist organization and also appended copies of same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Annexures P-7 and P-10 whereby the respondent-authorities have given exemption to two employees i.e Sh. Prem Singh Sharma, Chief Welfare Officer CWP No. 9986 of 2010 -3- and Sh. J.P Singh considering that they have attained the age of 53 years and 54 years respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the action of the respondent-department in not granting exemption to the petitioner like the one granted to Sh. Prem Singh Sharma and Sh. J.P Singh is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. His representation for exemption has been rejected by the department on the ground that his case was not found fit as he has shown no interest for passing the departmental examination when the chance was available to him. In view of the above factual position, the order dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure P-13) is quashed in view of the law laid down in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana, 2009(4) SLR 298. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. However, respondents are further directed to reconsider the representation (Annexure P-8) made by the petitioner afresh and pass speaking orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. July 27, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) .Arora JUDGE