SHAKUNTLA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing orders dated 1.5.1997/23.5.1997 (Annexure PA) and order dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure P. 7) whereby promotional increment granted to the petitioner under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume I, Part I (for brevity 'the rules') has been withdrawn. It is undisputed that the petitioner was initially appointed as J.B.T. w.e.f. 1.1.1980. Subsequently she acquired higher qualification and was granted higher pay scale w.e.f. 19.7.1980 in view of the policy letter dated 23.7.1957 issued by composite State of Punjab. A copy of the letter dated 9.3.1995 granting higher scale of Rs. 585-1050 from 19.7.1980 to the petitioner is attached with the petition as Annexure P. 1. This scale was later on revised to Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The petitioner was promoted as Social Study Mistress w.e.f. 25.2.1994 (Annexure P.2) in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and was granted one increment under Rule 4.4 of the Rules w.e.f. 25.2.1994. The petitioner continued to enjoy the benefit of promotion increment till 30.9.2004 on which date she got pre-mature retirement. Pension case of the petitioner was also sent on the basis of last salary including promotional increment in December, 2004. Respondent no. 2 vide office order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure P. 3) directed respondent no. 2 to re-fix the salary of the petitioner by withdrawing the benefit of promotional increment as she was not entitled to this benefit as she was already getting master scale before her promotion. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 issued the impugned order dated 1.5.1997/23.5.1997 (Annexure PA) wherein he sought clarification from the Finance Department that promotional increment cannot be granted to an employee if he was getting same scale equivalent to that of promotional scale before his promotion. Principal of the School served a show cause notice on the petitioner on 21.8.2005 (Annexure P. 5) that benefit of promotional increment granted to her shall be withdrawn, her pay shall be reduced accordingly and recovery of Rs. 32,000/- (approximately) shall be effected from her gratuity. The petitioner duly replied to the show cause notice and requested that she was rightly granted promotional increment under Rule 4.4 of the rules. It was also alleged that same benefit has also been given to many other similarly situated persons. The Principal of the School rejected the reply of the petitioner vide order dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure P. 7). The prayer now made is that according to Rule 4.4(a)(1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I (for brevity 'the Rules') the petitioner is entitled to the grant of one promotional increment.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel, we are of the considered view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner as she has already enjoyed better pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. It would be appropriate to make a reference to rule 4.4(a) of the rules which reads as under :

(3.) The matter is not res-integra. In catena of judgments, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has taken the view that in such circumstances no benefit of Rule 4.4(a) of the rules would be available. In the case of State of Haryana and another V/s. Partap Singh and others, 2006 12 JT 406 this very question was considered when certain JBT teachers on acquiring the higher qualification of B.A.B.Ed. had initially approached this Court which allowed the benefit of Rule 4.4 of the Rules. However, reversing the view taken by this Court and after referring to Rule 4.4(a), their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under :