Judgment:
CWP No.12621 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12621 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.07.2014 Dalip Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Monika Chhiber Sharma, D.A.G.Punjab.
**** 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
2.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
(ORAL) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-8).the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the earlier writ petition bearing CWP No.19569 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-3).impugned order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) was palpably wrong being contrary to the directions issued by this Court.
Impugned order was not only non-speaking and cryptic but it was contemptuous as well.
He further submits that the petitioner has been granted pension treating him as a regular employee.
Once the petitioner has Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.30 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.12621 of 2011 -2- been treated as regular employee, respondents have no authority to deny the benefit of proficiency step-up to the petitioner on completion of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service.
He prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that in view of the instructions dated 29.4.1998 (Annexure R-1).petitioner was not entitled for the relief being claimed.
The reason was that the petitioner was not a regular employee.
The benefit of proficiency step-up on completion of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service was available only to those who are regular.
She also submits that the impugned order was passed strictly in compliance of the order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition being CWP No.19569 of 2007 (Dalip Singh v.
State of Punjab and others).She prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that earlier writ petition bearing CWP No.19569 of 2007 (Dalip Singh v.
State of Punjab and otheRs.filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7780 of 2004 (Rakha Singh and State of Punjab and otheRs.The operative part of the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7780 of 2004 reads as under: “Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
Respondents are Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.30 13:46 directed to consider and treat the petitioner as a regular I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.12621 of 2011 -3- employee prior to the date of his retirement and thereafter reconsider his claim for pension and pay retiral benefits to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
.
It is also not in dispute that in compliance of the order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court, the petitioner was treated as a regular employee and pension was granted in his favour.
Once the petitioner has been rightly treated as regular employee by the respondent- authorities, instructions dated 29.4.1998 (Annexure R-1) would no more be applicable against the petitioner.
The said instructions would apply only to an employee who was either not regularized or was not treated as regular employee.
In the present case, petitioner has been admittedly and rightly treated as regular employee for the purpose of pension.
Once the petitioner was treated as a regular employee for the purpose of grant of pension, he would be certainly entitled for the service benefit of proficiency step-up as well.
Impugned order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) is contrary to the true spirit of the order passed by this Court, while allowing the abovesaid earlier writ petition of the present petitioner and the same cannot be sustained.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) is contrary to the order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court and found to be patently illegal, same is hereby set aside.
Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.30 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.12621 of 2011 -4- Resultantly, the Director, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Punjab-respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for granting him the financial benefit of proficiency step- ups on completion of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service.
Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
With the observations made and directions issued here-in- above, instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE2507.2014 rajeev Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.30 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh