RAMJI LAL UPPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has retired as a Head Master has filed this petition with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him an increment under rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part I on account of his promotion to the post of Head Master, and to release the special pay of Rs. 100/- per mensem as is admissible to the members of the cadre. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Master on November 17, 1960. On October 10, 1978, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer. On November 3, 1987, the petitioner was provisionally appointed against the post of Head Master in his "own pay and grade". Thereafter, the Director of Public Instructions issued an order dated January 28, 1990 by which various persons who had been "posted against the posts of Head Masters... in their own pay scale..." were "provisionally promoted as Head Masters (P.E.S. III) (Non- Gazetted).... in the grade of Rs. 700-1580 plus Rs. 20/- as personal pay at the maximum of the scale of pay (revised to Rs. 2000-50-2400-60-2700-75-3000-100-3500) with a special pay of Rs. 100/- per month prospectively.... from the dates mentioned against each." The petitioner was promoted as Head Master w.e.f. November 17, 1987. In this order, it was further stipulated that "since there is no provision for the promotion of lecturers to the posts of Headmasters in the Punjab State Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978, the pay of the official as Head Master will be fixed provisionally by the District Education Officers concerned from the date of provisional promotion mentioned above on the basis of the pay drawn as Master under the relevant rules/instructions." The petitioner represented against the above stipulation in the order. A copy of the representation dated May 15, 1990 has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. He inter alia pointed out that having worked as a lecturer from October 10, 1978 to November 16, 1987, he was drawing the pay of a lecturer. In this situation, the petitioner claimed that his pay as a Head Master could not be fixed on the basis of the emoluments which he would have drawn as a Master. The correspondence continued. However, the requisite relief having not been granted, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 1995. While the petition was pending in this court, the respondents passed an order dated July 5, 1996 by which they withdrew the orders dated January 28, 1990 and November 3, 1987 regarding the provisional promotion of the petitioner as Head Master. This was done for the reason that the petitioner had not given any option regarding the fixation of his pay in accordance with the stipulation in the order of his provisional promotion. This fact was disclosed in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents by the District Education Officer, Bathinda. Otherwise, on merits, the petitioner's claim was controverted.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had factually worked as a Head Master till his superannuation on April 30, 1994. The respondents had no jurisdiction to withdraw the order of his posting/promotion passed on November 3, 1987 and January 28, 1990 respectively. It was further submitted that on his promotion from the post of lecturer to that of Head Master, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of an increment under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner was entitled to the release of a special pay of Rs. 100/- per mensem. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioner's pay should be refixed after granting him the benefit of an increment and special pay. His pension should be revised on that basis and arrears paid. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was controverted by the counsel for the respondents.