CWP No. 7558 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 7558 of 1991 Date of decision 22.4.2009 Sarwan Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Amit Chopra ,Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents not to withdraw the benefit of Proficiency Step ups granted to the petitioners on completion of their 8/18 years of service in view of the instructions issued by the State Government after counting the period of service rendered by the petitioners on work charged basis. The petitioners were appointed as Work Mistry/ Pump Operators/Drivers/ Fitters/Chowkidars/ Plumbers/ Electricians etc. in Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) on work charged basis on different dates. Their services were lateron regularised as such. Before regularisation of their services the petitioner served the respondents on work charged basis for different periods ranging from 5 years to 10 years. On regularisation of the services of the petitioners, the benefit of the period CWP No. 7558 of 1991 2 of service rendered by them on workcharged basis before their regularisation was granted to them. The petitioners were given one annual increment for each completed period of service even on work charged basis and at the time of regularisation of their services, the total services rendered by the petitioners on workcharged basis was counted and their pay was accordingly fixed. It is averred in the petition that pay scales of the Punjab Government employees were revised and every time the pay of the petitioners was fixed in the revised scale of pay after counting total service rendered by them including work charged basis. On the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the pay scales of the Punjab Government employees including that of the petitioners have been revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the Government decided that besides grant of regular annual increments, one additional increment on each occasion on completion of 8 years and 18 years of service on or after 1.1.1986 in the form of proficiency step ups be also granted (P.1). On the revision of the pay scales of the employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the petitioners have also been granted revised pay scale and have also been granted the benefit of additional increment in the form of proficiency step ups on completion of their 8 and 18 years of service after counting the period of service rendered by them on work charged basis. It is averred in the petition that suddenly, the respondents decided vide letter dated 9.8.1990 (P.2) to withdraw the benefit of additional increments granted to the petitioners in the form of proficiency step ups and reduced the salary of the petitioners accordingly on the ground that the period of service rendered by the petitioners on work charged basis cannot be counted for calculating the period of 8 and 18 years of service. CWP No. 7558 of 1991 3 Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned State Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties have stated that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res-integra as the similar issue came up for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jagjiwan Ram and others (2009)3 SCC 661 wherein their Lordships in para 21 has held as under: “21. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound promotional scales/ promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years' regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service. “ In view of the above enunciation of law, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of the decision in Jagjiwan Ram's case (supra). However, the respondents are directed to not to effect any recovery from the petitioners, if any. (M.M.Kumar) 22.4.2009 Judge okg