IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 696 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: July 09, 2010 State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Devi Chand Jain .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J The instant appeal by the State of Punjab is directed against the judgment dated 10.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No.1527 of 1993. The learned Single Judge by placing reliance on Rule 11 (1) has come to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was promoted as Assistant Treasury Officer, on 16.6.1975 was entitled to be given one increment on completion of one year from the aforesaid date in terms of Punjab Treasury Establishment Subordinate Service (Class III) Rules, 1962 (for short 'Establishment Rules'). The learned Single Judge has rejected the objection raised by the appellant- State to the effect that the petitioner- respondent did not clear the departmental examination on the basis that no examination were held by the appellant- State in the year 1975 and 1976. The learned Single Judge has also made reference to the benefits granted to some other persons who were similarly situated like the petitioner- respondent and were granted annual grade increment on completion of one year on their promotion in service. The only argument raised by Mr. Sehgal, learned State counsel is that recruitment to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer as per Rule 7 of the Establishment Rules is required to be made by selection from amongst L.P.A. No. 696 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** Assistant Superintendent Treasury, Assistant in Treasuries, Assistant in Treasuries and Accounts Branch of Finance who shall possess a degree from the recognized university and has rendered two years service as such. The proportion of their quota has also been mentioned in the rule. Mr. Sehgal, has made a reference to Rule 11 (1) and has emphasized on the proviso which provides that no member of the service was entitled to draw his annual increment unless he passes the departmental examination. It is admitted as a fact that no examination in the year 1975 and 1976 was held and as per Appendix “B” of Rule 12 and according to Clause (3) of Appendix “B” the departmental examination is required to be held half yearly at fixed intervals, if possible in December and June. In the absence of holding of examination by the appellant- State, no fault can be found with the petitioner- respondent when he has not been given chance to qualify the examination. We find no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel. The appeal is wholly without any merit and does not warrant admission and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. Kumar) Judge July 09, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge