CWP No.11117 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11117 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16th May, 2011. Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.I.P.S.Kohli Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sukhbir Mattewal Advocate for the respondents. * * * Augustine George Masih , J.(Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondents wherein, the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the fourth paper examination as per the Ministerial Service Class three Regulations, 1985 and further that he does not fulfill the requirement of exemption from passing the examination. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of 23 years promotional increment on completion of his service as Lower Division Clerk on which post, he was initially appointed on 09.04.1973, in the year 1996. His further contention is that since his date of birth is 05.05.1949, he completed 50 years of age on 05.05.1999 and as per instructions dated 28.04.1998 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was entitled to the exemption as the said instructions grants exemption to an employee CWP No.11117 of 2009 (2) irrespective of the fact that he has availed six attempts to clear the Departmental Accounts Examination. He while interpreting this instruction submits that mere completion of 50 years of age by an employee would lead to automatic exemption from passing the Departmental Accounts Examination and accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to the increment on completion of 23 years of service if not in 1996 then in the year 1999 when he completed 50 years of age. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent-Board. He while referring to the instructions dated 28.04.1998 (Annexure P-6) states that it is not a blanket order of exemption to an incumbent who has completed 50 years of age. What the instructions further require is that the other conditions as laid down in the instructions dated 13.05.1983 and instructions dated 02.08.1988 in respect of Lower Division Clerks remain the same. According to the 1988 instructions for claiming exemption not only an employee has to be member of the Ministerial Establishment; has to be of 50 years of age but his service record has to be consistently good and without blemish and he should have been at least admitted four times to clear the examination. The petitioner although completes the first condition but the other two conditions, he does not fulfill as the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed on him on 07.01.1988. Further the petitioner has not made the mandated four attempts to clear the examination and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the exemption as claimed by dis-entitling him the benefit of increment on completion of 23 years of service. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the CWP No.11117 of 2009 (3) parties and have gone through the records of the case. Counsel for the petitioner apart from his claiming the blanket exemption on completion of 50 years of age on the basis of instructions dated 28.04.1988 (Annexure P-6), has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CWP No.17270 of 2007 titled as Jasbir Singh Vs.The Punjab State Electricity Board and others decided on 10.03.2009 to contend that the petitioner would be entitled to the same benefit as in the said order of this Court while interpreting the instructions dated 28.04.1988 had held that an employee would be entitled to exemption on completion of 50 years of age irrespective of the fact whether he had cleared the departmental examination or not. In my considered view, it is a misplaced argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner as a perusal of the judgment would show that it was a case where the petitioner had availed six attempts to clear the departmental examination and on his completion of 50 years of age, the benefit was not being granted to the petitioner. In those facts and circumstances, the claim of the petitioner was covered by the instructions dated 28.04.1988 (Annexure P-6) and the writ petition was rightly allowed by this Court. In the case of the petitioner in hand, it is not in dispute that as per instructions dated 28.04.1988, apart from the stipulation that the employee has completed 50 years of age and have availed six attempts to clear the Departmental Accounts Examination the other conditions as laid down in instructions dated 02.08.1988 in respect of Lower Division Clerks were to remain the same. As per the 1988 instructions, Clause 18 whereof has been reproduced by the respondents in their preliminary submissions No.1 which reads as follow: CWP No.11117 of 2009 (4) “The grant of exemption from passing the examination shall be considered by the Secretary in extremely hard cases on the following consideration:- a) The member of the ministerial Establishment, making the request has attained the age of 50 years. b) This record is consistently good and without blemish. c) He had at least made four attempts to clear the examination. Once exemption has been granted to a member of the ministerial Establishment, by the Secretary, no disability, whatsoever, shall attach to him in order to consider him for further promotion.” The claim of the petitioner would not be covered as firstly Clause “b” is not fulfilled by him as he has been punished by imposing stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 07.01.1988. He admitted that he does not fulfill mandate of Clause “C” which requires an attempt by an employee to clear the examination at least four times. In the light of the above, the claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be accepted. He does not fulfill the requirements of the instructions applicable to the claim of the petitioner for grant of increment on completion of 23 years of service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner as a matter of fact was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 18.12.2003 and thereafter, he has been granted the increments of the promoted post. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed by upholding the order dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P-1). (Augustine George Masih) 16th May, 2011. Judge Seema-II