C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008 Date of decision: 02.12.2009 Kuldip Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) Patiala and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 14980 of 2008 and Civil Writ Petition No. 7251 of 2006 both titled Kuldip Kaur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) Patiala and others, as the common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 14980 of 2008. The petitioner was appointed as Steno with the Punjab State Electricity Board on 30.4.1982. On 30.4.1998, petitioner was released second promotional time bound scale and her salary was fixed accordingly. On 7.5.1998, the petitioner was offered promotion to the post of UDC. However, she declined to accept the promotion and her request was accepted vide order dated 27.8.1998 vide which she was allowed to forgo her promotion for a period of three years. On 2.5.2006, C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008 -2- the respondents ordered the recovery of amount from the petitioner on the plea that the second promotional time bound scale granted to the petitioner on 30.4.1998 was not due to her, as she had refused promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner filed civil writ petition No. 7251 of 2006 to challenge the recovery being made from her on the plea that the benefit granted to the petitioner either rightly or wrongly could not be withdrawn, as the petitioner had no role to play in grant of second promotional time bound scale nor any fraud or mis-representation was alleged against her. This Court admitted the writ petition and stayed the recovery of the amount said to have been paid in excess. According to the respondents, under a mistake they continued paying the salary to the petitioner on account of second promotional time bound scale. On realising the mistake, an order was passed on 27.5.2008 refixing the salary of the petitioner by denying her second promotional time bound scale till 1.1.2006 and ordered recovery of the amount paid in excess on account of wrong fixation of salary. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.5.2008. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends, that the impugned order of withdrawal of second promotional time bound scale cannot be sustained in law, as the same was granted to the petitioner on 30.4.1998, whereas she had refused the offer of promotion only on 7.5.1998, therefore, on the date of grant of promotional scale, she was entitled thereto. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008 -3- petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to second promotional time bound scale despite refusal to accept the promotion. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in civil writ petition No. 6135 of 2003 titled Varinder Pal Vs. The State of Punjab and others decided on 5.7.2005, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has been pleased to lay down as under: - “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the controversy raised in the instant petition is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 6049 of 1997 “Tipan Chand Sharma and another Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 6.5.1998. This judgment has also been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Shashi Kiran and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2003(1) SCT 340. The view taken by this Court is that merely because an employee has foregone his promotion would not be sufficient to deny him the benefit of proficiency step up after completion of 24/32 years of service. The facts of present case are also similar as in the impugned order the same reason for declining the benefit of proficiency step up on completion of 24/32 years of service has been stated. Therefore, in our view the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgments cited above. It is also pertinent to notice that the learned State Counsel has not been able to successfully dispute the aforementioned conclusion drawn by us. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-7 dated 7.11.2002 is quashed and the directions are issued to the respondents to release the increments of proficiency step up after completion of C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008 -4- 24/32 years of service to the petitioner under the Assured Career Progression Scheme with all consequential benefits and also to refund recovered amount of Rs.21,110/-.” Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that object of giving second promotional time bound scale to an employee is only to remove the hardship and stagnation for want of promotional avenues and once the promotional avenue was available to the petitioner, and she voluntarily did not accept it, she was not entitled to the second promotional time bound scale, therefore, the order passed by the respondents is in consonance with the object for which the rules regarding promotional time bound scale were framed. On consideration, I find that the relief claimed by the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Varinder Pal Vs. The State of Punjab and others (supra). Once the petitioner has refused to accept the promotion and her request has been accepted, the promotional time bound scale could not be denied to her, as it is not mere offer but the actual promotion which could debar a person to get the time bound scale as per rules. For the reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits. The arrears be released within three months of receipt of certified copy of order. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge December 02, 2009 R.S.