C.W.P. No. 7737 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7737 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: November 30, 2009 Smt. Harbinder Devi and Ors. .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The State of Punjab and Another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-2 dated 03.03.2009. 2. Annexure P-2 is a reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioners, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners had been offered promotional opportunities on their turn, which they declined. As such, they are not eligible for the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. 3. Gist of the claim of the petitioners is to get benefit of higher pay scale after completion of 24 years of service as per the scheme. 4. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed in the Department of Revenue as Clerks. The petitioners are C.W.P. No. 7737 of 2009 2 now working as Senior/Junior Assistants and there has been no complaint against their work and conduct. The petitioners have been representing for grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme after completion of 24 years of service in the year 2000. Promotion was offered but the petitioners refused to the same. It has been contended that even though the petitioners refused promotion, the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 24 years has not been given. 5. Learned counsel relies on a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6135 of 2003 titled Varinder Pal Vs. State of Punjab and Others decided on 05.07.2005. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents concede that indeed the issue raised on behalf of the petitioners is covered by judgment rendered in Varinder Pal's case (supra). 7. In Varinder Pal's case (supra), the following has been held:- “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 C.W.P. No. 7737 of 2009 3 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 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/-.” 8. Considering the conceded position that the petitioners are entitled to the claim made in the petition in view of the judgment to which reference has been made, this petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release increments of proficiency step up with consequential benefits. The directions given above be complied within four months of receipt of certified copy of the order. 9. No order as to costs. 30.11.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?