CWP No.11790 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11790 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2010 **** Jaswinder Singh . . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner retired from the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) on 28.02.2007. He seeks quashing of the order dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P15), whereby, his claim for the release of two annual increments falling on 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2007 respectively, has been turned down on the ground that while in service and on his promotion as BDPO, he failed to pass the prescribed Departmental examination. CWP No.11790 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted as BDPO vide order dated 27.10.2004. In this manner, he had little more than two and a half years’ service to his credit before attaining the age of superannuation. It is true that an employee is not entitled to the annual increment (s) till he passes the departmental examination in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (in short, ‘the Rules’) (3). However, the State Government had earlier vide order dated 30.03.1979 (Annexure P4) granted general exemption from passing the departmental examination to all those BDPOs, who had attained the age of 51 years or more. The aforesaid exemption was further stretched in favour of those promoted at the age of 55 or have exceeded 55 years of age, vide the State Government orders dated 08.06.1999/05.07.1999 (Annexure P5). (4). Even under the 1994 Rules ibid, it is the case of the respondents themselves that the departmental examination is required to be passed within a period not exceeding two and a half years’ service. As the total service period of the petitioner on the CWP No.11790 of 2009.doc - 3 – promotional post was less than two and a half years, it was a fit case where the respondents ought to have extended the benefit of orders (Annexure P5) granting exemption to the BDPOs from passing the departmental examination(s) if they had attained the age of 55 years to the petitioner as well. The claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said exemption notifications issued by the State Government from time to time. (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and while quashing the order dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P15), the respondents are directed to release two annual increments to the petitioner which were due to him as on 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2007, respectively. The consequential benefits flowing therefrom after the re-fixation of his retiral benefits, shall also be released forthwith but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . CWP No.11790 of 2009.doc - 4 – (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 12.05.2010 vishal shonkar