IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 1780 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 26, 2009 MALKIAT SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The petitioners, 5 in number, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order placed on record as Annexure P-6 (collectively), the effect of which is that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of additional increments under Assured Career Progression Scheme on the ground that the results of the petitioners for the last 5 years have been below 50%. Civil Writ Petition No. 1780 of 2009 2 It has been pleaded that the petitioners have been serving the respondent-Department as Science Master/Mistresses. The annual Confidential Reports of the petitioners are either very good or good and there is no adverse remark conveyed to the petitioners. The petitioners became entitled to the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, which benefit, however, has been denied on the ground of inadequate results. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue has been considered by this Court while dealing with CWP 6288 of 2008 (Kiran v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 3.7.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to distinguish the judgment rendered in the case of Kiran (supra), relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no rule, regulation or even government instructions whereunder the ACP benefit could be withdrawn for alleged inadequate result of the students in an academic year. In the impugned order, it is pleaded that the benefit is sought to be withdrawn on the basis of the government instructions dated 01.12.1988. These instructions were issued for grant of ACP consequent upon the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission whereunder the Proficiency Step- up Scheme was introduced. These instructions are on record as Annexure P-1. I have perused the aforesaid document. There is no provision or condition which inter alia disentitle an employee otherwise entitled to the proficiency step-up Civil Writ Petition No. 1780 of 2009 3 benefit on account of inadequate result. Apart from that, the petitioner was granted the benefit of proficiency step- up on the basis of subsequent government instructions 25.09.1998 on the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission and a new Scheme was notified vide Annexure P-2. In the said circular, there is no such condition. On the contrary, the condition for entitlement of the proficiency step-up is that the employees should have good ACRs and should be otherwise eligible for promotion in the cadre of service. The benefit conferred upon the petitioner has been withdrawn only on the ground that the result of the petitioner was less then the Board's result. No rule or circular has been brought to my notice which inter alia disentitle the petitioner from such benefit on this condition. It is also argued by Mr. Arora that while issuing the show cause notice Annexure P-4, no such condition was communicated to the petitioner and even when the petitioner submitted her detailed reply the same has not been considered appropriately while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents was not able to show any law or rule to justify the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order Anenxure P-11 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to the ACP benefit as conferred upon her vide Annexure P-3. It has been brought to my notice that the petitioner has not retired on 30.04.2008. All the retiral/pensionary benefits shall be released in favour of the petitioner without any further delay. Petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest whatever payable.” Civil Writ Petition No. 1780 of 2009 4 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further stated that instructions have been issued on 21.8.2009 by the Government of Punjab, Department of Education, whereunder the earlier instructions which linked the promotion of teachers to their results have been withdrawn, the same being contrary to the provisions of the Punjab State Education Service Class-III (Service Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. Considering the facts and circumstances noticed above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme to the petitioners in accordance with the Assured Career Progression Scheme, within 3 months of receipt of certified copy of the order. August 26, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?