IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 26, 2009 SUNITA SURI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to grant the benefit of 8 years' proficiency step-up to the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturer, which is due towards the petitioner in terms of Government instructions dated 25.9.1998. It has been pleaded that the petitioner joined the Punjab Education Department on the post of S.S. Mistress on 11.9.1978. Her Civil Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2009 2 services were regularised on 1.10.1980. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Economics) on 11.9.1997. The petitioner has an excellent service record. She has not been given promotion after 11.9.1997. In terms of instructions dated 25.9.1998, pursuant to recommendations of Pay Commission Report, the employees were allowed benefit of proficiency step-up on completion of 8/16/24/32 years of regular service. The instructions have been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioner completed 8 years service on 11.9.2005 and became entitled to grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme which, however, has been declined vide order dated 4.10.2007. The denial of the benefit has been related to inadequate teaching results of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner made a representation to respondents No.3 and 4, for considering her claim for grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, on the basis of actual service record. The claim, however, has been declined on account of inadequate results. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a similar issue had been raised before this Court in CWP 6288 of 2008 (Kiran v. The State of Punjab and others). The Court had allowed the writ petition vide order dated 3.7.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that considering the legal position, the respondents have issued instructions dated 21.8.2009 (Memo No. 1/553/09-5Edu2/5448) with the following Civil Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2009 3 provisions :- “Subject: Consideration of results of classes taught by teachers while promoting him/her to the next higher post. Reference on the subject noted above. 2. The matter has been reconsidered and it has been decided to withdraw the instructions contained in Memo No.15/46/2004-2Edu 2/12766 dated 9.6.2005 being contrary to the provisions of Punjab State Education Service Class-III (Service Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. 3. It is made clear that the cases of all employees who have been ignored for promotion earlier on this account should be reviewed. 4. This letter is issued with the approval of Secretary, School Education.” Notice of the following portion is also required to be taken from the judgment rendered in the case of Kiran (supra):- “It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no rule, regulation or even government instructions whereunder the ACP benefit could be withdrawn for alleged inadequate result of the students in an academic year. In the impugned order, it is pleaded that the benefit is sought to be withdrawn on the basis of the government instructions dated 01.12.1988. These instructions were issued for grant of ACP consequent upon the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission whereunder the Proficiency Step- up Scheme was introduced. These instructions are on record as Annexure P-1. I have perused the aforesaid document. There is no provision or condition which inter alia disentitle an Civil Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2009 4 employee otherwise entitled to the proficiency step-up benefit on account of inadequate result. Apart from that, the petitioner was granted the benefit of proficiency step- up on the basis of subsequent government instructions 25.09.1998 on the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission and a new Scheme was notified vide Annexure P-2. In the said circular, there is no such condition. On the contrary, the condition for entitlement of the proficiency step-up is that the employees should have good ACRs and should be otherwise eligible for promotion in the cadre of service. The benefit conferred upon the petitioner has been withdrawn only on the ground that the result of the petitioner was less then the Board's result. No rule or circular has been brought to my notice which inter alia disentitle the petitioner from such benefit on this condition. It is also argued by Mr. Arora that while issuing the show cause notice Annexure P-4, no such condition was communicated to the petitioner and even when the petitioner submitted her detailed reply the same has not been considered appropriately while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents was not able to show any law or rule to justify the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order Anenxure P-11 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to the ACP benefit as conferred upon her vide Annexure P-3. It has been brought to my notice that the petitioner has not retired on 30.04.2008. All the retiral/pensionary benefits shall be released in favour of the petitioner without any further delay. Petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest whatever payable.” Civil Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2009 5 Having considered the factual and legal position, as given out above, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 8 years of regular service by the petitioner, is unreasonable and arbitrary, as there is no rule which would disentitle the petitioner to such benefit. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme, which shall be granted to the petitioner within 3 months of receipt of certified copy of the order, with all consequential benefits. August 26, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?