Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44375 (PNJ)

AMARJIT SINGH ANAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

CWP/13212/2008 · 2025-05-19

Aman Chaudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-13212-2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 1144 Sh. Amarjit Singh Ananad State of Punjab and CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : None Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petition for 01.01.2005 and grant proficiency step up which became due on completion of 8 years on the post of District Treasury Officer as was granted to Sh. KK Senior Assistant 2. Notice of motion Division Bench on 29.07.2008 the petitioner that merely because he had refused promotion could not result in refusal of grant of squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench in CWP 2008, titled as Kamla Devi vs. State of Punjab and another, the operative part “A perusal of the judgment that in decided case also the question involved was as to whether proficiency step up of the employee could be withheld merely because he has refused to avail promotion. The Division Bench has taken the view that such The operative part of the order reads as under: The basic contention raised before us is that the respondent had 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sh. Amarjit Singh Ananad Versus State of Punjab and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** None for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition for 01.01.2005 and grant proficiency step up which became due on completion of 8 years on the post of District Treasury Officer as was granted to Sh. KK Senior Assistant vide order dated 08.08.2007. otice of motion in this case was issued Bench on 29.07.2008, while noting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because he had refused promotion could not result in grant of benefit of ACP and other increments and that the squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench in CWP Kamla Devi vs. State of Punjab and another, operative part whereof reads thus:- “A perusal of the judgment dated 28.11.2002 (Annexure P that in decided case also the question involved was as to whether proficiency step up of the employee could be withheld merely because he has refused to avail promotion. The Division Bench has taken the view that such a course is not open to the respondent The operative part of the order reads as under: The basic contention raised before us is that the respondent had - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13212-2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Prayer made in the present petition for fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and grant proficiency step up which became due on completion of 8 years on the post of District Treasury Officer as was granted to Sh. KK Jindal, in this case was issued for final disposal by the noting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because he had refused promotion could not result in increments and that the claim was squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench in CWP-12047 Kamla Devi vs. State of Punjab and another, dated 18.07.2008, dated 28.11.2002 (Annexure P-8) shows that in decided case also the question involved was as to whether proficiency step up of the employee could be withheld merely because he has refused to avail promotion. The Division Bench has a course is not open to the respondent-State. The operative part of the order reads as under:- The basic contention raised before us is that the respondent had .2025 fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and grant proficiency step up which became due on completion of 8 Jindal, final disposal by the noting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because he had refused promotion could not result in was 12047- dated 18.07.2008, 8) shows that in decided case also the question involved was as to whether proficiency step up of the employee could be withheld merely because he has refused to avail promotion. The Division Bench has State. The basic contention raised before us is that the respondent had ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13212-2008 foregone their promotions as lecturers with effect from 1.1.1986 and consequently they would be step up. The respondents claim to have taken this action in furtherance to paragraph No.9 of the Punjab Government Instructions dated 1.9.1989. It is difficult for this Court to hold that the petitioners would be deba up in the circumstances of the case. The petitioners were offered the promotion in September, 1998 and thereafter. By that time the petitioners had completed more than eight years of service as they were appointed on appointed to the same posts in the year 1977 onwards. Thus, in any circumstances and whatever be the interpretation given to the instructions of the Government, the petitioners cannot be denied the eight years p In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure P5) is quashed. The responden directed to consider the case of the petitioner for Assured Career Progression Scheme on complet cadre. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 3. On 09.09.200 judgment rendered by Chand Sharma and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 06.05.1998, operative portion whereof reads thus: “So far as the case of the resent petitioners is concerned, it can be found that none availing of the promotions before the appointed date. Both the petitioners had completed 8/18 years on the appointed date. Therefore, even if the petitioners had not availed of the promotions avenues as al appointed date cannot be washed away. We, therefore, do not want to go into discussion of the question to the effect of not availing the promotional avenues in case 8 and 18 years service is not co by any of the petitioners on the appointed date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the reasons for not granting the proficiency step allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to step years of service. However, the arrears so calculated shall be restricted for a period of three years and two months prior to the filing of the writ petition which was fi 4. Learned State counsel is unable to distinguish the aforesaid judgments as also 2008 (O&M) foregone their promotions as lecturers with effect from 1.1.1986 and consequently they would be debarred from claiming the proficiency step up. The respondents claim to have taken this action in furtherance to paragraph No.9 of the Punjab Government Instructions dated 1.9.1989. It is difficult for this Court to hold that the petitioners would be debarred from claiming the proficiency step up in the circumstances of the case. The petitioners were offered the promotion in September, 1998 and thereafter. By that time the petitioners had completed more than eight years of service as they were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1975 and regularly appointed to the same posts in the year 1977 onwards. Thus, in any circumstances and whatever be the interpretation given to the instructions of the Government, the petitioners cannot be denied the eight years proficiency step up increment. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure P5) is quashed. The responden directed to consider the case of the petitioner for Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years service in a cadre. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” On 09.09.2009, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner judgment rendered by the Division Bench in CWP Chand Sharma and another vs. State of Punjab and others, operative portion whereof reads thus: “So far as the case of the resent petitioners is concerned, it can be found that none of the petitioners can be punished for alleged non availing of the promotions before the appointed date. Both the petitioners had completed 8/18 years on the appointed date. Therefore, even if the petitioners had not availed of the promotions avenues as alleged, their right to get the proficiency step up on their appointed date cannot be washed away. We, therefore, do not want to go into discussion of the question to the effect of not availing the promotional avenues in case 8 and 18 years service is not co by any of the petitioners on the appointed date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the reasons for not granting the proficiency step-up to the petitioners are not justified. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to step-up increments to the petitioners on the completion of 8 and 18 years of service. However, the arrears so calculated shall be restricted for a period of three years and two months prior to the filing of the writ petition which was filed on 03.05.1997.” Learned State counsel is unable to distinguish the aforesaid also regarding the factual position - 2- foregone their promotions as lecturers with effect from 1.1.1986 and debarred from claiming the proficiency step up. The respondents claim to have taken this action in furtherance to paragraph No.9 of the Punjab Government Instructions dated 1.9.1989. It is difficult for this Court to hold that rred from claiming the proficiency step up in the circumstances of the case. The petitioners were offered the promotion in September, 1998 and thereafter. By that time the petitioners had completed more than eight years of service as they ad hoc basis in the year 1975 and regularly appointed to the same posts in the year 1977 onwards. Thus, in any circumstances and whatever be the interpretation given to the instructions of the Government, the petitioners cannot be denied the roficiency step up increment. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure P5) is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for Assured Career ion of 4, 9 and 14 years service in a cadre. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner, on the in CWP-6049-1997 titled as Tipan Chand Sharma and another vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on operative portion whereof reads thus:- “So far as the case of the resent petitioners is concerned, it can be of the petitioners can be punished for alleged non availing of the promotions before the appointed date. Both the petitioners had completed 8/18 years on the appointed date. Therefore, even if the petitioners had not availed of the promotions leged, their right to get the proficiency step up on their appointed date cannot be washed away. We, therefore, do not want to go into discussion of the question to the effect of not availing the promotional avenues in case 8 and 18 years service is not completed by any of the petitioners on the appointed date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the reasons for not granting the up to the petitioners are not justified. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to grant proficiency up increments to the petitioners on the completion of 8 and 18 years of service. However, the arrears so calculated shall be restricted for a period of three years and two months prior to the filing of the led on 03.05.1997.” Learned State counsel is unable to distinguish the aforesaid the factual position and resist disposal of the petition foregone their promotions as lecturers with effect from 1.1.1986 and debarred from claiming the proficiency step up. The respondents claim to have taken this action in furtherance to paragraph No.9 of the Punjab Government Instructions dated 1.9.1989. It is difficult for this Court to hold that rred from claiming the proficiency step up in the circumstances of the case. The petitioners were offered the promotion in September, 1998 and thereafter. By that time the petitioners had completed more than eight years of service as they ad hoc basis in the year 1975 and regularly appointed to the same posts in the year 1977 onwards. Thus, in any circumstances and whatever be the interpretation given to the instructions of the Government, the petitioners cannot be denied the In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order s are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for Assured Career ion of 4, 9 and 14 years service in a cadre. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the the Tipan decided on “So far as the case of the resent petitioners is concerned, it can be of the petitioners can be punished for alleged non- availing of the promotions before the appointed date. Both the petitioners had completed 8/18 years on the appointed date. Therefore, even if the petitioners had not availed of the promotions leged, their right to get the proficiency step up on their appointed date cannot be washed away. We, therefore, do not want to go into discussion of the question to the effect of not availing the mpleted We are, therefore, of the opinion that the reasons for not granting the up to the petitioners are not justified. We, therefore, grant proficiency up increments to the petitioners on the completion of 8 and 18 years of service. However, the arrears so calculated shall be restricted for a period of three years and two months prior to the filing of the Learned State counsel is unable to distinguish the aforesaid and resist disposal of the petition ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13212-2008 in terms thereof or cite any contrary law 5. The petition is disposed of in terms of 19.05.2025 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2008 (O&M) in terms thereof or cite any contrary law. The petition is disposed of in terms of (AMAN CHAUDHARY) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : - 3- The petition is disposed of in terms of Kamla Devi (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document