IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: March 23, 2011 1. LPA NO. 170 of 2011 (O&M) Balbir Singh …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents 2. LPA NO. 538 of 2011 (O&M) Balbir Chand ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 170 and 538 of 2011, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the orders dated 28.5.2009 and 5.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court deciding the writ petition(s) in terms of judgment dated 27.5.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Charan Dass and others v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 5568 of 2008). 2. Notice of motion. LPA Nos. 170 and 538 of 2011 (O&M) 3. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has handed over a copy of each of the paper book to the learned State counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today itself. 4. The order dated 27.5.2009 passed in the case of Charan Dass and others (supra) was subject matter of challenge in LPA No. 1161 of 2009 (Tarlok Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others) and connected 69 appeals. In the said bunch of appeals after considering the issue whether the benefit of special increments granted to the petitioner-appellants from time to time under the statutory Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rule could be withdrawn by the respondent State by enforcing an executive circular dated 5.8.1968, the Letters Patent Bench (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) allowed the appeals vide judgment dated 8.9.2010 by observing as under: “9. A bare perusal of Rule 10.8 makes it clear that the Chief Engineer has been clothed with the power to grant advance increments to the personnel borne on work-charged establishment, which could be granted even on initial appointment of the person against a post as well as during the course of his service. The Chief Engineer continues to enjoy this power till date. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the benefit of special increments, which was 2 LPA Nos. 170 and 538 of 2011 (O&M) extended to various work-charged employees like the petitioner-appellants, did not require any sanction from any authority before its release to work-charged employees because the Chief Engineer is fully competent. We further find that the circular dated 5.8.1968 issued by the State of Punjab converting grant of special increments to cash rewards to its employees could not have been made applicable to the petitioner-appellants because prior to 1996 the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I Part-I were not applicable to them and they were to be governed by the Departmental Financial Rules. At stated above, under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules, the Chief Engineer was fully empowered to grant special increment to a person borne on work-charged establishment. It is also well settled principle of law that the executive instructions cannot override the powers of the authorities conferred upon them under the statutory Rules. Therefore, it is held that the Chief Engineer was competent to grant special increments under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules and the same could not have been withdrawn. 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, these appeals are allowed. The orders passed by the official respondents withdrawing the benefit of special increments are set aside. The orders passed by the learned Single Judges are also modified to that extent. 3 LPA Nos. 170 and 538 of 2011 (O&M) The benefit of special increments is restored back to the petitioner-appellants.” 5. Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed in terms of judgment dated 8.9.2010 rendered in the case of Tarlok Chand and others (supra). 6. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) 23.3.2011 JUDGE PKapoor 4