SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired as a Deputy Superintendent of Police from the Punjab Police, has approached this Court with a prayer to modify the order dated 21-8-1995 (Annexure P-4) to the extent of refixation of his pay after the grant of deemed date of promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (for short "DSP") as well as for quashing of the order dated 4-9-1995 (Annexure P5) whereby the 'compensatory pay' and 'motor cycle allowance' which was drawn by him in the rank of Inspector, has been withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus for the grant of some other monetary benefits for the period when he worked as an Assistant Sub Inspector/Sub Inspector in the police department.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 21-8-1950 and he retired in the rank of DSP w.e.f. 31-8-1990. It appears that on account of more than one adverse entries in his confidential reports, the petitioner was denied promotion. Aggrieved, he approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition (No. 10437 of 1994) which was allowed on 12-12-1994 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider his case for promotion. Pursuant to these directions, the order dated 14-2-1995 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, whereby the petitioner's date of confirmation as ASI, date of promotion as SI, his inclusion in promotion List 'F' and placement in the seniority list of Inspector were antedated. Consequently, the Government of Punjab promoted the petitioner as a DSP retrospectively w.e.f. 17-8-1987 (instead of 15-12-1989). The petitioner's pay in the promotional rank of DSP was thereafter fixed vide order dated 21-8-1995 (Annexure P-4) from the deemed date of promotion, i.e., 17-8-1987. Another order dated 4-9-1995 (Annexure P-5) was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, withdrawing the 'compensatory pay' and 'motor cycle allowance' which the petitioner had earned as an Inspector for the period from 18-8-1987 to 31-8-1990 and which, according to the aforesaid authority, was not admissible to a Gazetted Officer. Aggrieved at the incorrect fixation of his pay on the deemed date of promotion as DSP as well as the order, Annexure P-5, that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) As far as the fixation of the petitioner's pay in the rank of DSP is concerned, Shri Walia, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 (in short "the 1988 Rules") framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and which were notified on 13-9-1988 but have been enforced retrospectively in terms of Rule 1(2) thereof w.e.f. 1-1-1986. According to Shri Walia, the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of minimum two increments from the date of his deemed promotion as DSP in terms of Rule 8 of these Rules but no such benefit has been granted to him.