GURWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing Clauses 2 and 3(b) of the appointment letters dtd. 29/2/2016 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) and Clause 1 of the appointment letter dtd. 26/2/2016 (Annexure P-10) and have prayed for consequential relief in the matter of pay-scale and computation of services as probationers.

(2.) In support of the writ petition, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notification and the appointment letters and in particular, the conditions therein that the probationers would be allowed only fixed pay (equal to minimum of pay band for the post and during the period of promotion shall not be paid any grade-pay, annual increments etc.) and their period of service during the probation shall not be counted is illegal. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the posts on which the petitioners have been appointed are admittedly sanctioned posts with the Government, and that is why they were advertised and filled in after due procedure was followed. The aforesaid conditions, in the appointment letters, are not only onerous but clearly violate the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior counsel relied on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in this connection in the case of Gopal Kumawat versus The State of Rajasthan and others, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2963/2007, decided on 29/7/2015. He submitted that the provisions in the Rajasthan Service (Amendment) Rules, 2006, which were quashed by the Rajasthan High Court and the provisions in the present case are pari materia. There is no material difference as such. At any rate, according to him, the question that has been raised irrespective of the nature of the amendment made, is the violation of fundamental right of the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition in terms of judgment cited supra of the Rajasthan High Court.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents agreed that the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has in almost similar type of matters granted the relief to the petitioners in that petition. However, he submitted that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court is under challenge before the Supreme Court, and therefore, these petitions should be adjourned. He further pointed to us some difference in the matter of provisions in the Rajasthan Rules and the present Punjab Rules. He, therefore, prayed for adjournment of the writ petition ad infinitum.