RAKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The effect of the circular letter dated 24.1.2011 [P-6] is that the approval was granted by the Finance Department permitting the petitioners to change their options in implementation of the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP No.7664 of 2009 etc. decided on 25.2.2010 with the condition that their pay will be fixed on notional basis and they will not be paid any arrears. More importantly, it was also made clear that similar benefit regarding change of options may also be allowed in similar nature cases/matters.

(2.) Thereafter, a supplementary circular dated 25.10.2012 was issued where a generalized decision was taken to cover all the departments of the Government. The petitioner belongs to the Department of Health & Family Welfare while the cases decided with lead case CWP No.7664 of 2009 dealt with the Department of Education. The petitioner's case has been rejected for change of option for the reason that she had applied under circular dated 24.1.2011 but not the subsequent circular dated 25.10.2012 on the same subject. When the circular said that the employees of the other departments are also permitted to change their options, this did not mean that a fresh option was a condition precedent for award of benefits and the options already exercised by persons like the petitioner, in the departments other than the Education Department would be deprived of this right merely because they did not respond specifically to the subsequent circular dated 25.10.2012 which made no material difference. All that the circular requires is that the administrative department will be entitled to certify such claims for change of option. It becomes the duty of every department in the Punjab Government under the circular to invite applications from those who have not already applied because in the considered view of this Court, circular dated 24.1.2011 cannot be read in isolation to include only the petitioners of the six petitions which comprised the bunch under lead case CWP No.7664 of 2009. This is for the reason that Article 14 mandates similar treatment to similarly-placed persons and the ground is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2002 2 SCT 354 where the principles have been evolved for grant of similar relief to be granted to all those who have rights in rem based on court orders and directions. Therefore, I would read the circular dated 24.1.2011 not in personam but in rem and the instructions dated 25.10.2012 do nothing more then to recognize the cherished principle against unfair discrimination protected by Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) Notice of motion.