Regular Second Appeal No. 702 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 702 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 17, 2009 Raghbir Singh ......... Appellant versus Punjab Govt. and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to second proficiency step up benefit on completion of 24 years of service was dismissed. The plaintiff was appointed as Forest Guard on 24.07.1970. On 25.09.1998, a circular was issued by the Punjab Government for grant of benefits of proficiency step up on completion of 24 and 32 years of service on the same post. The plaintiff-appellant completed 24 years of service on the same post of Forest Guard on 1.7.1996 and his claim for second proficiency step up sought on 20.09.1999 was declined vide letter dated 3.2.2000. It is the said decision which was challenged by the appellant before the civil Court. Both the learned Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The reason for declining the second proficiency step up was Regular Second Appeal No. 702 of 2009 [2] adverse remarks for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93 but it has been found that adverse remarks for the year 1991-92 were challenged by the plaintiff- appellant in the civil Court and the same were struck down. Even the first appeal and the second appeal were dismissed and the matter attained finality after the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In respect of the adverse remarks for the year 1992-93, departmental appeal filed by the appellant was allowed on 21.10.2000 vide Exhibit P-9 and adverse remarks were expunged. It was further found that annual confidential reports for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 was satisfactory, whereas annual confidential report for the year 1995-96 was good. It was found that in terms of circular dated 25.09.1998. as clarified vide letter dated 10.01.2000 and endorsed vide Memo No. 31320-49 dated 15.2.2000, issued with the concurrence of Department of Finance dated 16.06.1999, the term 'overall service record is adjudged as 'Good' will mean that 50% reports should be 'Good' and above, including at least two of the last three reports. The relevant extract from the instructions read as under:- “ Instructions dated 25 th September, 1998 1 to 3 (vi) xx xx xx xx 3. (vii) An employee shall be entitled to a maximum of two placements in higher scale and a maximum of two proficiency step up in his entire service career under this scheme. 4 (i) Placement in high scale and proficiency steps-up under this policy shall be granted only to those employees whose overall service record is adjudged as 'good'. If a departmental test is prescribed or acquisition of higher qualification is a pre-requisite for promotion to the higher level then only those employees who clear such test or acquire such Regular Second Appeal No. 702 of 2009 [3] qualifications would be eligible for benefits under this scheme.” Instructions dated 10.1.2000 endorsed vide Memo No.31320-49 dated 15.02.2000 “ I am directed to invite your attention to the Punjab Govt. Circular letter No. 3/37/98-5PPI/12851 dated 25th September, 1998 on the subject cited and to state that para 4(i) of this circular provides as under:- “Placement in high scale and proficiency steps-up under this policy shall be granted only to those employees whose overall service record is adjudged as 'good'. If a departmental test is prescribed or acquisition of higher qualification is a pre-requisite for promotion to the higher level then only those employees who clear such test or acquire such qualifications would be eligible for benefits under this scheme.” Doubts have been expressed by some quarters about the term overall service record is adjudged as 'Good' and have sought clarification about this term. 2. This matter has been considered in consultation with the Department of Finance and it is clarified that the term 'overall service record is adjudged as 'Good' will mean that 50% reports should be 'Good' and above, including at least two of the last three reports. The rest of the reports may be satisfactory/ average. 3. This may please be brought to the notice of all concerned. This issues with the concurrence of the Department of Finance as conveyed by them vide their I.D. No. 5/10/99-FP- I/554 dated 16th June, 1999” Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant became eligible for second proficiency step-up on 1.7.1996 and, therefore, the clarification thereafter in the year 2000 is not relevant for Regular Second Appeal No. 702 of 2009 [4] determining the eligibility condition of the appellant for grant of proficiency step up. I do not find any merit in the said argument. The circular dated 10.01.2000 is a clarificatory circular clarifying how the service record is to be considered. Therefore, such clarificatory circular would be applicable even on 1.7.1996 - the date from which the grant of second proficiency step up is to be considered in respect of the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. August 17, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE