Civil Writ Petition No. 18882 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18882 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.07.2010 Meghna ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner joined the office of Controller Food and Supplies, Ambala as Clerk on 19.05.1998. Thereafter, she was transferred as Clerk to the office of Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana on 26.05.2005. On 01.01.2008, the petitioner was promoted as Auditor and joined at Chandigarh in the office of Director Food and Supplies. She become due for annual increment w.e.f 01.01.2009 as she had rendered one year service on the promoted post. She, however, was not granted increment due. The petitioner submitted representation on 12.05.2009. When she did not hear Civil Writ Petition No. 18882 of 2009 2 anything, the petitioner sent a reminder dated 17.09.2009 but still her prayer was not granted. The petitioner served a legal notice on 23.10.2009 to the authorities for granting the annual increment after completion of one year's regular service. On 04.12.2009, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner cannot be granted increment as she did not fulfill the requirement of experience at the time of granting promotion and that she would be entitled to increment only when she completed the required experience. The justification advanced to deny the increment is apparently contained in the promotion order, Annexure P-1. While promoting the petitioner to the post of Auditor in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-7100-EB-150-7850, the requirement of experience was relaxed. The requirement of experience is provided in Harayna Food Supplies Department, Directorate (Group C) Service Rules, 1982. It is also mentioned in para 2 of the promotion order that the petitioner and the other officials would be entitled to annual increment after one year from the date of completion of the experience as laid down in department Service Rules, 1982. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition to impugn this clause of the promotion order and has prayed for grant of increment on completion of one year service on the promoted post. In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. The reason given in the promotion order is advanced as justification to deny the annual increment to the petitioner. The stand as pressed before the Court is Civil Writ Petition No. 18882 of 2009 3 the same that though the petitioner was promoted by relaxing the qualification but this promotion was subject to the condition that she will not be entitled to annual increment till she completed the requirement of experience. Can a person who is promoted and given a scale of the promoted post, denied increment on the ground that he/she did not fulfill the requirement of experience? Once promotion is granted by relaxing the experience clause then it may not be fair to deny increment on the ground that the employee has not requisite experience. The employee could have been denied promotion on the ground if the requirement of experience was so essential. Once the decision is taken to relax the requirement of experience, the consequential increment has to follow and denial of the increment would sound unfair. After all, promotion not only leads to added responsibility but is looked upon as monetary incentive by an employee. Promotion without corresponding increase of the scale of promoted post would be no incentive for promotion. To me, it will sound a bit strange that the pay scale stands granted but the petitioner is held not entitled to the increment. Once the requirement of experience was dispensed with, it would continue to have effect for the purpose of grant of increment as well. I see no justification in the stand taken by the respondent in denying the increment to the petitioner once she is performing the higher responsibilities and is manning the higher post. The submission made by Mr. Rathee that the petitioner has now been granted increment w.e.f. 01.07.2010 would further show that the denial of increment was not fair. I do not find any legal justification in Civil Writ Petition No. 18882 of 2009 4 the stand taken by the respondent and the same deserves to be rejected. The petitioner is held entitled to increment, as per the rules, on completion of one year service on the promoted post. The arrears due shall be released to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. July 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE