IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 9109 of 1993 Date of Decision: 28.1.2010. Om Parkash and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Aggrieved of the order dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure P-12) the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the withdrawal of the benefit granted to them earlier. The petitioners were working as Clerks in the Transport Department of State of Haryana. At the time of their initial appointment they were possessing the academic qualification of pre- university B.A. Part-II. They acquired higher qualification i.e. the Graduation (B.A.) during the course of their service with the prior permission of the department. Petitioner No.1 Om Parkash acquired the higher qualification in November, 1980, petitioner no.2 Jaibir Singh in June, 1982, whereas petitioners no.3 & 4 acquired the higher qualification in September, 1980. The State of Haryana had issued a Govt. Circular dated 20.6.1977 for grant of benefit to Govt. employees on the basis of acquiring higher qualifications as prescribed in the aforesaid circular. This circular was followed by another circular dated 10.1.1983 (Annexure P-2). Some further circulars were issued. The petitioners made a claim for two increments in terms of the aforementioned Govt. circulars on the basis of CWP. No. 9109 of 1993 -2- their having acquired higher qualifications. Since their claim was not considered, petitioners filed CWP No. 12104 of 1989 (Annexure P-6). This writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 21.9.1989 with direction to respondents no.2 to 4 to look into the claim of the petitioner as specified in Annexure P-9 and disposed it of by passing a speaking order. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, petitioners were granted benefit of two increments vide order dated 18.5.1990. This benefit has now been withdrawn vide the impugned order. The benefit has been withdrawn on the ground that the advance increments granted in the shape of personal pay were wrongly granted to the petitioners taking into consideration the instructions/circulars of the State Govt. Nothing is mentioned in the impugned order as to how the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit. In the reply filed by the respondents, while referring to various Govt. instructions including Annexure R-1 & R-2 it is stated that under these instructions the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of two increments on the basis of higher qualification. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the Govt. instructions. Annexure R-1 is the copy of Govt. instructions dated 20.6.1977. Under these instructions one increment was payable to a Govt. employee acquiring diploma of at least one year, two increments on acquiring Law Degree or Post Graduation and four increments on acquiring Doctorate or Post Doctorate qualifications. The petitioners were not entitled to any benefit under these instructions. Another instruction dated 7.8.1980 Annexure R-2 provided for grant of two advance increments in CWP. No. 9109 of 1993 -3- case of employees, who were appointed during the period 1.4.1979 to 28.2.1980 and also those employees, who acquired the higher qualifications during the said period. Petitioners' case is also not covered by the aforesaid Govt. instructions. It appears that these Govt. instructions were superseded by subsequent Govt. instructions dated 10.1.1983 (Annexure P-2). These instructions provide for following conditions for grant of the advance increments:- “ (i) No employee improving his qualifications after 20.12.1982 would be entitled to the benefit of advance increments in the form of personal pay. (ii) The benefit of personal pay already being given to employees who improved their qualifications under instructions in vogue before 20th December, 1982 would continue for stipulated period. (iii) The employees who have already improved their qualifications (before 20th December, 1982), but have not yet put their claim for personal pay or those whose claims are pending, will be given the benefit as per policy in vogue before 20.12.1982.” The petitioners' case is categorically covered by sub clause (iii) of the aforesaid instructions. Petitioners had improved their qualifications before 20.12.1982 i.e. between December, 1980 to June 1982 and their claims were pending before the Govt. In terms of these instructions, petitioners were entitled to two advance increments on acquiring the higher qualification than the minimum prescribed. In view of the above, petitioners were rightly granted the benefit of two increments vide order dated 18.5.1990. In the impugned order this aspect has not been taken into consideration and reliance is placed CWP. No. 9109 of 1993 -4- upon the earlier instructions which have no application. There has been total non-application of the mind. To the contrary, in the reply filed in para 8, it is specifically mentioned that the Govt. instructions dated 10.1.1983 were in the nature of clarification and those employees, who improved their qualifications up to 20.12.1982 were entitled to the benefit. Thus, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of two advance increments. Withdrawal of the benefit vide the impugned order is totally unjustified. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to release benefits of payment of two increments from the date the petitioners were given the benefit in terms of order dated 18.5.1990 within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.1.2010. lucky