CWP No.8915 of 2006.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8915 of 2006 Date of Decision: 12.10.2010 **** Amarjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. NS Boparai, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 06.12.2005 (Annexure P3) whereby the benefits of Proficiency Step-up granted to him on completion of 8 years of service has been withdrawn on the plea that he had foregone the promotion offered to him, and consequential recovery has also been ordered to be effected from him. (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that the above-stated benefits have been rightly withdrawn. CWP No.8915 of 2006.doc - 2 – (3). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was granted the Proficiency Step up on completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 26.11.1993 vide order dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P1). Thereafter the petitioner was offered promotion vide order dated 10.08.1994 which was foregone by him. (4). The issue as to “whether the Proficiency Step- up/Time Bound Pay Scale(s) already granted to an employee can be withdrawn on the ground that he/she refused to accept the subsequently offered promotion” has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in CWP No.2587 of 2009 titled as Rattan Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others decided vide order dated 12.08.2010. (5). For the reasons assigned in Rattan Chand’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 06.12.2005 (Annexure P3) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the Proficiency Step-up to the petitioner granted on completion of 8 years of his service besides refunding the amount already recovered from him. The respondents are further directed to re-fix the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner accordingly. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. CWP No.8915 of 2006.doc - 3 – 12.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE