Civil Writ Petition No. 11528 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11528 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.11.2011 Harbhajan Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition praying for a direction in the nature of mandamus for grant of higher pay scale etc. in view of number of years of service rendered by him. It has been averred in the petition that petitioner has been appointed as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways on 02.05.1977. In view of recommendations of the fourth pay commission, the State Government issued instructions dated 25.09.1998, Annexure P-1. In view of same, the petitioner is entitled to grant of proficiency step up on completion of 8, 16, 24 & 32 years of service. However, this benefit has been denied to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that case of the petitioner for grant of additional increments has to be considered on the same footing as that for promotion. He submits that Civil Writ Petition No. 11528 of 2011 2 07 increments of the petitioner have been stopped with cumulative effect and 25 without cumulative effect. According to him, record of the petitioner is not good and punishment imposed shall remain in operation till his retirement. He is thus not entitled to grant of higher pay-scale on completion of 8, 16 16 & 24 years of service. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case A perusal of para 4(i) of the instructions, Annexure P-1 shows that placement in higher pay-scale and proficiency step-up under the policy are to be granted only to those employees whose overall service record is adjudged as ‘Good’. In the instant case, 32 increments of the petitioner have been stopped commencing year 1978. Details of the order passed have been given in the affidavit dated 09.08.2011 filed by the State. Thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that overall service record of the petitioner is good. Further, considering the criteria as laid down under the instructions the petitioner cannot be granted the relief as the overall record is to be seen. Number of punishments have been awarded to the petitioner during his service career. In view of above, I am of the considered view that claim of the petitioner for grant of proficiency step-up on completion of 8, 16 & 24 years of service is baseless. No interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed. November 17, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE