CWP No.21287 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 20. 1.2011 Ram Kumar Kapoor ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RK Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the prayer made and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself without insisting for reply. The petitioner joined the Punjab Education Department as Math Master on 9.6.1976 on ad hoc basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 1.10.1980. The petitioner was offered promotion as Lecturer Chemistry on two occasions, but he did not accept the same on the ground that on promotion his teaching subject/cadre will be changed. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied the benefit of proficiency step up increments under the ACP Scheme on completion of 16/24 years service in CWP No.21287 of 2010 2 terms of instructions dated 25.9.1998 and also benefit of 4/9/14 years service under the instructions dated 3.11.2006. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Varinder Pal vs. The State of Punjab and others (CWP No.6135 of 2003 decided on 5.7.2005) wherein following observations/directions have been made:- “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 fore gone 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 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 CWP No.21287 of 2010 3 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 allaowed. 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 24/32 years of service to the petitioner under the Assured Careers Progression Scheme with all consequential benefits and also to refund recovered amount of Rs.21,110/-. The writ petition stands disposed of.” This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the increments of proficiency step up after completion of 24/32 years of service to the petitioner under the ACP Scheme with all consequential benefits. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.1. 2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4