6.3.2009 Present: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. & Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. for the respondents. CWP(T) No. 3423/2008(OA No.1146/96) The petitioner was working as Lecturer in the Senior Secondary School, Garili, Distt. Kangra, H.P. with the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State of Himachal Pradesh, in terms of order dated 14.6.1989 conferred certain benefits of proficiency increment(s) to the State Govt. employees. The relevant clause 8 entitling the petitioner for the same is reproduced as under:- “(8) An employee will be eligible to proficiency increment(s) only if he was not gained any enhancement in his basic pay, except by way of annual increments and fixation of pay as a result of revision of pay scales from time to time, during preceding eight years for first prop-increment, and 18 years for second prop-increment as on the date from which prop increment is given.” In terms of decision rendered by the Court, the petitioner was promoted to the School and Inspection Cadre (Group-II) but only on notional basis w.e.f. 1.4.1983. The letter dated 1.4.1995 (Annexure A-1) evidences the said fact. In fact the said letter itself clarifies that the fixation of pay was approved only on notional basis and no financial benefit was permissible to the petitioner. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed that two proficiency increments with all consequential benefits be accorded to him in view of the Clause 8 of the Govt. order. The State has filed its reply. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. However, the only defence taken is that since the petitioner was granted notional promotion, hence he was not entitled to the said benefits. The stand taken by the State is not in the spirit of Clause 8 of the aforesaid office memorandum, which carves out only one exception i.e. if the employee has not gained ‘any enhancement in his basic pay’. It is a matter of record that the notional promotion was granted purely on the basis of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 12929-31 of 1992. No financial benefits having been granted to the petitioner, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. There is nothing to the contrary on the record. The respondents are directed to pay two proficiency increments along with other consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. No other point urged. The petition is allowed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 6, 2009 (rana)