STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present judgment, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 634 of 1990, Civil Writ Petition No. 5371 of 1990 and 18132 of 1991. The facts have been taken from the Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Kuldip Singh was employed as a clerk with the Municipal Committee, Nabha, and while so employed, was placed under suspension on Aug. 22, 1973. The Municipal committee passed an order on Oct. 17,1978 exonerating him of the allegations made and holding him to be innocent and in consequence thereof, he was reinstated with fullback wages, increments and other monetary benefits. If appears that while respondent No. 1 was under suspension, the Employees Union of the Government and other Municipal committee in the State gave call for a State-wide strike for Feb. 8, 1978, which was partially successful. In order to show its appreciation to those employees who did not go on strike, the Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government issued a circular dated June 16, 1978, allowing the grant of one premature increment to the Government employees. This concession was later extended to the employees of the Municipal Committees vide Annexure P-6, dated 6-10-1986. In this circular, no exception was made with regard to the grant of the increment in the case of those employees such as respondent No. 1, who were under suspension on the date of strike. The claim of respondent No. 1 was however, rejected by the Municipal Committee, on the ground that he was under suspension on Feb. 8, 1978 and there was accordingly no question of his non-participation in the strike and for reaching this conclusion, the Municipal Committee relied on a clarificatory circular dated Jan. 6, 1979 issued by the Punjab Government and appended as Annexure P-5 to the petition, in which it was stated that an employee under suspension could not get the benefit of the premature increment visualised by Annexure P-4 and P-6. Aggrieved by the circular, Annexure P-5, respondent No. 1 filed the present writ petition which on being allowed, has led to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) In the reply filed to the writ petition, the stand of the Municipal Committee, was that the benefit of a premature increment could not be given to respondent No. 1 as he was under suspension on the crucial date and there was no question of his being called upon to stay away from the strike in that eventuality. This interpretation was not accepted and the learned Single Judge who found that though the grant of a pre-mature increment by the State Government was a goodwill gesture and a concession which could not be enforced through a mandamus, yet respondent No. 1 having been exonerated from the departmental enquiry on Oct. 18, 1978 the thereafter having been reinstated in service, it could be said that he would be deemed to be working on Feb. 8, 1978 i.e. the date of strike and if had he not participated in the strike, he too would have been automatically 7 entitled to the grant of this concession. The learned Single Judge further found that as respondent No. 1 had been deprived of the chance to make an option as to whether or not to participate in the strike by being erroneously put under suspension, he could not be made to suffer for no fault of his.