LAWS(P&H)-1990-1-120

KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 22, 1990
KULDIP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the only prayer made by one Kuldip Singh, Clerk, Municipal Committee Nabha is, the grant of one premature increment which was granted to other employees of the State Government and those of Municipal Committee, who did not participate in the strike on 8th February, 1989.

(2.) The petitioner while in service of the municipal committee was placed under suspension on 22nd August, 1973, pending a departmental enquiry against him. Later, the municipal committee passed an order on 17th October, exonerating him of the allegations against him "as he was innocent". Resultantly, the municipal committee reinstated him on 18th October, 1978, with full back wages, increments and other monetary benefits.

(3.) The Employees Union of the Municipal Committee in the State gave a call for State wide strike on 8th February, 1978. In order to ensure the smooth working, the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, vide circular letter dated 6th February, 1978, cautioned the employees not to resort to strike on 8th February, 1978. Despite this a number of employees went on the strike while others did not. The State Government in appreciation of the gesture of discipline on the part of those who did not take part in the strike decided to give the benefit of one premature increment to them in the scale of pay in which they were working on 8th February, 1978. In this letter there was no exception with regard to the grant of said increment in the case of the employees who were under suspension on the day of the strike. The claim of the petitioner for the grant of premature increment was rejected by the respondent on the ground that he was under suspension on the 8th February, 1978 and was reinstated on 18th October, 1978 and there was, therefore, no question of his non-participation in the strike. This conclusion has been reached on the basis of a clarification made in letter dated 6th January, 1979 as reproduced in letter dated 6th October, 1986 (Annexure P.6).