IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 12 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 12, 2011 Narinder Dev ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant in terms of order dated 27.5.2009 passed in CWP No. 5568 of 2008 (Charan Dass and others v. State of Punjab and others) and other connected writ petitions. 2. The issue raised in the instant appeal is no longer res integra. The order dated 27.5.2009 passed in the case of Charan Dass and others (supra) was subject matter of challenge in LPA No. 1161 of 2009 (Tarlok Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others) and connected 69 appeals. In the said bunch of appeals after considering the issue whether the benefit of special increments granted to the petitioner-appellants from time to time under the statutory Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rule could be withdrawn by the respondent State by enforcing an executive circular dated 5.8.1968, the Letters Patent Bench L.P.A. No. 12 of 2011 (O&M) (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) allowed the appeals vide judgment dated 8.9.2010 by observing as under: “9. A bare perusal of Rule 10.8 makes it clear that the Chief Engineer has been clothed with the power to grant advance increments to the personnel borne on work-charged establishment, which could be granted even on initial appointment of the person against a post as well as during the course of his service. The Chief Engineer continues to enjoy this power till date. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the benefit of special increments, which was extended to various work-charged employees like the petitioner-appellants, did not require any sanction from any authority before its release to work-charged employees because the Chief Engineer is fully competent. We further find that the circular dated 5.8.1968 issued by the State of Punjab converting grant of special increments to cash rewards to its employees could not have been made applicable to the petitioner-appellants because prior to 1996 the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I Part-I were not applicable to them and they were to be governed by the Departmental Financial Rules. At stated above, under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules, the Chief Engineer was fully empowered to grant special increment to a person borne on work- charged establishment. It is also well settled principle of law that the executive instructions cannot override the powers of the authorities conferred upon them under the statutory Rules. Therefore, it is held that the Chief Engineer was competent to grant special increments under Rule 10.8 of the Departmental Financial Rules and the same could not have been withdrawn. 2 L.P.A. No. 12 of 2011 (O&M) 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, these appeals are allowed. The orders passed by the official respondents withdrawing the benefit of special increments are set aside. The orders passed by the learned Single Judges are also modified to that extent. The benefit of special increments is restored back to the petitioner- appellants.” 3. Accordingly, instant appeal is also allowed in terms of judgment dated 8.9.2010 rendered in the case of Tarlok Chand and others (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 12, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 3