IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.496 & 497 of 2008 in/and L.P.A. No.137 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.7.2009 State of Haryana & others. -----Appellants Vs. Amrit Lal Saini. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellants. Respondent in person. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of the learned Single Judge, setting aside withholding of arrears of increments of the respondent. 2. The respondent joined service as Assistant Superintendent of Jail on 13.10.1958. He was sent on deputation to Territorial Army in August, 1962, where he served till 1981. He qualified Army departmental tests for promotion and was promoted to the rank of Major. During his stay in LPA No.137 of 2008 Territorial Army, the respondent was given proforma promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail on 8.3.1971 and Superintendent of Jail on 25.2.1981 in his parent department. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar thrice during the period of his deputation. He rejoined his parent department on 1.10.1981. On 5.5.1983, his annual grade increment was stopped till he passed the departmental examination. 3. The respondent protested against stoppage of increment, by stating that he had already passed all the departmental examinations while his stay with the Territorial Army and was promoted upto the rank of Major. He was 53 years of age and at this age, it was not be fair to require him to pass further departmental test. The examinations were required to be passed within 2 years of enactment of Punjab Jail Department State Service (Class III Executive) Rules, 1963. Accordingly, he was granted exemption, vide order dated 22.4.1988 and increments were released, but without arrears. 4. Prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the withholding of arrears of increment. 5. Learned Single Judge held that having regard to the developments that have taken place i.e. promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail and Superintendent of Jail, without passing the departmental test and grant of exemption on the ground that the petitioner had already passed similar departmental examinations while being on deputation, there was 2 LPA No.137 of 2008 no justification for withholding the increment. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another AIR 1976 SC 1177, holding that stoppage of increments for not passing test was not justified in respect of a person who had already rendered long service and proviso to Rule 7 of Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (for short, “the 1965 Rules”), to the following effect:- “Provided that if a similar qualifying test has been passed by him while in military service he shall be exempted altogether from passing the said Test.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent in person. 7. Only contention raised on behalf of appellants is that exemption was granted to the respondent only for future and therefore, arrears were rightly withheld. 8. We do not find any merit in this contention. The fact remains that the authority granting exemption found the test to be unnecessary qua the writ petitioner, as he had already passed such test while on deputation with the Territorial Army. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the State was unable to show that the standard of test passed in the Army was not equal to the standard of departmental examination. Even now, the State is unable to show that. 3 LPA No.137 of 2008 8. Having further regard to proviso to Rule 7 of the 1965 Rules and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another (supra), view taken by the learned Single Judge does not, in any manner, call for interference. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 06, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) ashwani JUDGE 4