CWP No.12923 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12923 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.02.2010 **** Baldev Raj Sharma . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CWP No.13019 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.02.2010 **** Ram Kumar Kapoor . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.12923 and 13019 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.12923 of 2009. CWP No.12923 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner is aggrieved at the letters dated 13.02.2009 and 29.04.2009 (Annexures P6 and P7), whereby, the date of grant of additional increment(s) for the higher qualification is being preponed from the date of regular appointment to the date of his ad hoc appointment. (3). The petitioner joined the Department as a Science Master on 29.07.1976 on ad hoc basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1980. He possessed higher qualification of M.Sc. which he had passed before joining the ad hoc service. The petitioner was later on promoted as Lecturer and retired on 30.04.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. (4). It is indeed not in dispute that in terms of the Government policy prevailing at that time, the petitioner was entitled to three advance increments on the basis of the higher qualification of M.Sc. possessed by him. Those increments were granted to him from the date of regular appointment i.e. 01.10.1980 instead of the date of ad hoc appointment i.e. 29.07.1976. (5). The Accountant General, Punjab now appears to have raised an objection that the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of three advance CWP No.12923 of 2009.doc - 3 – increments w.e.f. 29.07.1976 i.e. from the date of ad hoc appointment. The preponment of the date of increments is not beneficial to the petitioner as during the interregnum the pay scales were revised and he was placed in a higher pay scale w.e.f. 01.02.1978 which obviously means the revision of rate of increment as well. (6). After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the respondents themselves had granted the benefit of three advance increments to the petitioner as well as other similarly situated Teachers from the date of their regular appointments only and the Accountant General, Punjab itself has been taking the stand that such increments are admissible only from the date of regular appointments, I am of the considered view that the objection raised at this belated stage is wholly untenable and amounts to causing unwarranted harassment to the petitioner. (7). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed; the impugned letters dated 13.02.2009 and 29.04.2009 (Annexures P6 and P7) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period CWP No.12923 of 2009.doc - 4 – of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 7 per cent from the due date to the actual date of realization. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 23.02.2010 vishal shonkar