CWP No. 13925 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 13925 of 2007 (O& M) Date of decision: 25.07.2011 Ram Chander ........ Petitioner Versus UHBVNL and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Malik, Senior advocate with Ms Renu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mohnish Sharma, advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. C M No. 8116 of 2011 C.M is allowed and the main writ petition is being taken up for hearing today itself. Main case The petitioner was initially appointed as Peon in the Haryana State Electricity Board in the year 1972. Thereafter, he was promoted as Bill Distributor on 01.05.1973 and then Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on CWP No. 13925 of 2007 2 22.11.1979. He retired from service on 28.02.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, vide order dated 20.07.2007, a direction was issued that the benefit of increment already granted to the petitioner be recovered by issuing show cause notice. Reply has been filed by the State. As per the reply, the petitioner was required to pass type test within six months on joining the promotional post of Lower Division Clerk. Since, the petitioner failed to qualify the type test, increments released to him are recoverable. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sukhbir Singh v. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others (CWP No. 5558 of 2009, decided on 19.08.2010, wherein, it was held :- “Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that in view of the condition in the promotion order, amendment in the recruitment policy in the year 1989-90, the petitioner was required to pass type test and on failure to pass type test he was not entitled to increments. No doubt, there was a stipulation in the promotion order but such stipulation was without any legal sanction. The petitioner was promoted in the year 1979. In the promotion order there was no stipulation regarding penal consequences for non- passing of the type test and petitioner was only required to pass the type test within 6 months but on expiry of six months no action was contemplated or initiated against the petitioner. He continued to work as LDC and even promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk without any action against him. It was only in the year 1989 the promotion policy was amended with incorporation of penal clause of non-grant of annual increments which CWP No. 13925 of 2007 3 was reiterated in the year 1990 policy. Petitioner’s promotion is prior to these policies and these policies are only prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to the date of promotion of the petitioner. Thus, action of respondents in withdrawing the increments already granted to the petitioner after his retirement is unwarranted and illegal.” In view of the above, the present writ petition is also allowed in terms of the judgment rendered in CWP No. 5558 of 2009 titled as Sukhbir Singh v. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others (supra). (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.07.2011 mohan