IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11102 of 1996 Date of Decision:- 14.05.2008 Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Amit Chopra, Advocate vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Mukesh Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who was working as a Junior Assistant (and has unfortunately expired during the pendency of this writ petition and is now represented by his legal heirs), seeks quashing of the order dated 14.5.1996 (Annexure P-11) whereby his seniority in the cadre of Clerks was re- determined to his disadvantage as well as order dated 22.5.1996 (Annexure P-12) whereby upon refixation of the seniority in the cadre of Clerks, his pay as Clerk/Sr.Clerk has also been refixed and reduced. It may be noticed here that while issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court had stayed the operation of both the impugned orders Annexures P-11 and P-12. As a consequence thereto, the petitioner continued to hold the promotional post of Jr. Assistant till he retired on C.W.P. No.11102 of 1996 -2- attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2004. The petitioner thereafter unfortunately expired on 8.5.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. The only question which requires consideration is as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner as Cinema Project Operator could be counted in the cadre of Clerk as both the posts were stated to be equivalent and in the same pay-scale. Admittedly, the aforesaid benefit was initially granted to the petitioner vide an order dated 23.12.1986. The said order came to be challenged at the behest of some Clerks working in the Head Office by way of C.W.P.No.525 of 1987 which was dismissed by this Court vide an order dated 30.1.1987. Notwithstanding that, the respondents decided to withdraw the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner as Cinema Project Operator and consequently redetermined his seniority as well as pay in the cadre of Clerk/Sr.Clerk. It is not the case of the respondents that by granting the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner as Cinema Project Operator towards his total length of service as Clerk, any Statutory Service Rules governing the service conditions have been violated. Both the orders, namely, granting and withholding the benefit are purely administrative orders. Once the respondents had taken a conscious decision to extend the benefit of petitioner's previous service when he was absorbed as a Clerk which is equivalent in status and pay to the previous post of Cinema Project Operator, there appears to be no valid reason to reconsider the said decision C.W.P. No.11102 of 1996 -3- and to withdraw the benefit already granted to the petitioner. Besides this, the aforesaid benefit cannot be permitted to be withdrawn at this stage. Assuming that both the above-stated services could not be clubbed together, yet the benefit of regular service rendered by the petitioner as Cinema Project Operator was liable to be counted towards 'qualifying service' for the purposes of retiral benefits under Rule 3.17 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol-II. That apart, the petitioner continued to draw salary as per the revised pay fixed for Clerk/Sr.Clerk under the interim orders passed by this Court and since retiral benefits were also granted to him on the basis of that pay only, it will be too harsh and inequitous to affect the 'family pension' or other retiral benefits to which the widow and other dependent family members of the deceased are entitled in law. For the reasons aforestated, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 14.5.1996 and 22.5.1996 (Annexures P-11 and P-12 respectively) are quashed. The retiral benefits, if any, withheld by the respondents shall be released to the legal representatives of the petitioner within a period of three months. No costs. May 14, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE