BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has retired as a Junior Engineer (Civil) from Municipal Council, Raman, has sought a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 2/4.7.2014 (Annexure-P-9), vide which the claim of the petitioner regarding grant of Assured Career Progression ( in short 'the ACP') Scheme with effect from 1.11.2006 on completion of 9 years of service, has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to grant the benefit of ACP Scheme with effect from 1.11.2006 on completion of 9 years of service.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 24.10.1978. Thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Work Supervisor on 25.1.1985. Thereafter, he rose to become Junior Engineer (Civil) on 12.7.1996 and ultimately, retired from service on 31.1.2010. The Punjab Government, vide circular dated 25.9.1998, implemented the ACP Scheme with effect from 1.1.1996 on completion of 8/16/24/32 years of service in order to break the financial stagnation of its employees on account of non availability of promotional avenues. Vide circular dated 27.6.2000 (Annexure-P-2), Class- II status and designation of the Assistant Engineer upto the corresponding stage of 8/16 years of service was provided to the cadre of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Government, vide notification dated 3.11.2006, introduced a new Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short 'ACP Scheme of 2006'), on the completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service, applicable with effect from 1.11.2006, superseding the earlier ACP Scheme. It was stipulated in the said notification dated 3.11.2006 that the said scheme is optional i.e. the existing employees including the employees having less than four year service will have the option either to continue in the existing ACP Scheme after a service of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years or to opt for new 4, 9 and 14 years ACP Scheme. The petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 12.7.1996. So, the petitioner completed 9 years of service as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 12.7.2005 i.e. prior to issuance of notification dated 3.11.2006. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of new ACP Scheme of 2006 on completion of 9 years of service with effect from 1.11.2006. On 3.10.2013, the petitioner served a legal notice to the respondents to give him benefits of the said scheme, but no action was taken. On 13.12.2013, the petitioner served another legal notice to the respondents to grant him benefit of gratuity by considering his service as 33 years instead of 32 years. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the CWP No. 912 of 2014 for grant of benefit of ACP Scheme of 2006 with effect from 1.11.2006 on completion of 9 years of service on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). He also made request for release of full gratuity amount on the ground that he worked for 33 years, instead of 32 years. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.1.2014 (Annexure-P-8) with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notices dated 3.10.2013 and 3.12.2013. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 2/4.7.2014 (Annexure-P- 9), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of ACP Scheme of 2006 on the ground that in accordance with the instructions of Government dated 27.6.2000, the petitioner is entitled to grant of ACP Scheme on completion of 8/16 years of service. He has already been granted benefit of ACP Scheme on completion of 8 years of service on 15.7.2004 and next benefit was to be granted to him on 15.7.2012, whereas he stood retired on 31.1.2010. The payment regarding gratuity was declined on the ground that the State has filed LPA No. 1857 of 2013 before the Division Bench of this Court against the judgment dated 16.8.2013, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11373 of 2012, titled as Rattan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others , in which Stay has been granted. The petitioner has now challenged the impugned order only qua the non grant of ACP Scheme of 2006 and for setting aside the impugned order dated 2/4.7.2014 (Annexure-P-9).

(3.) The State, in the reply, has taken the stand that the petitioner is governed by notification dated 27.6.2000. The Instructions dated 25.9.1998 (Annexure-P-1), issued by the Government, are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is stated that vide notification dated 25.9.1998, the employees were granted next pay scale on completion of 8 years of service and thereafter one increment each on completion of 16 and 24 years of service and new pay scale and one increment on completion of 32 years of service. This Scheme was applicable to other employees. The notification dated 27.6.2000 was exclusively issued for Junior Engineers for granting them the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme. They were given new pay scales and one increment on completion of 8 years of service with Class-II status. It was further stated that the Punjab Government issued the instructions dated 3.11.2006, whereby the employees could exercise their option to continue in the existing ACP Scheme after a period of 8/16/24/32 years of service or opt for 4/9/14 years of service, but the said scheme is applicable only for the employees other than Junior Engineers. The Government had issued specific instructions dated 1.12.2011 (Annexure-R- 1) only for the Junior Engineers, under which the Junior Engineers were not only granted new pay scales on completion of 8/16 years of service, but were also granted increment as well as new designation, which have not been granted to other employees as per notification dated 1.11.2006. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of ACP Scheme dated 1.11.2006.