These
appeals arise from the judgment dated 17th August, 2012 rendered by the Division
Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, the intra-court
appeals preferred by the appellants herein were dismissed and the judgment
dated 11th August, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
was upheld. Learned Single Judge rejected the Civil Writ Petitions preferred
by the appellants for grant of benefits under the Proficiency Step-up
Scheme, 1988 and ACP Scheme, 1998, by accounting for their entire
service period including that in the work-charged establishment.
Learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants,100 vehemently and fervently
contended that the Government of Punjab has on its own volition, extended the
very same benefits of120
Proficiency Step-up to other employees situated at par with the
appellants, and thus, the differential treatment meted out to the
appellants tantamount to hostile and subjective discrimination,
which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In
this regard, learned senior counsel drew the
attention of this Court to the Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996,
issued by the Department of Irrigation and Power, Government of Punjab,
whereby, it was decided that the Government Policy contained in
the200 letter dated
7th May, 1993 would be relaxed and the services of the work-charged staff
of Ranjit Sagar Dam would be regularised. He submitted that clause (a) of the
said Policy Circular clearly provided that the past services rendered by240 the employees on work-charged or daily
basis will be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other
benefits.
Learned
senior counsel further referred to various communications
and circulars, more specifically to the Circular dated 12th April,
2005 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants, thus, submitted that the appellants
herein are entitled300 to
reliefs sought for in these appeals by reversing or modifying the judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as upheld by the learned
Division Bench.
During
the course of submissions, learned senior counsel for
the appellants had restricted the claims of the appellants to the benefits
under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988.
Per
contra, learned360 AAG
representing the State, vehemently contested the submissions advanced by
the counsel for the appellants and urged that the benefits under the
Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 to employees situated at par with
the appellants herein were extended only in the400 cases where such employees were granted
the said relief in compliance of the orders passed by the courts in judicial
proceedings. Nonetheless, Shri Irfan was not in a position to
dispute the fact that the Circular dated 12th April, 2005 issued by the Chief
Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab, clearly provides for the grant
of Proficiency Step-up to employees of different categories who were left
out after the various judgments of the courts, without any court orders
being in force qua480 such
employees.
We
have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at
the bar and have perused the impugned500
judgments. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we
have thoroughly examined the material available on record.
The
primary issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the
service rendered by the appellants herein as work-charged employees prior to regularisation
is to be accounted towards the grant of benefits under Proficiency Step-up
Scheme, 1988, in view of the fact that other similarly situated employees have
already been granted the same benefit.
The
fact that the appellants herein were regularised in service and the period
spent by them in the work-charged establishment was ordered to be
counted600 for qualifying
service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits is not
in dispute as the same is clearly discernible from the Policy
Circular dated 13th March, 1996 referred to supra.
However,
a significant bulk of litigation in the form of writ petitions had
ensued on behalf of the employees engaged in the work-charged
establishment, who claimed that the services rendered by them as work-charged
employee should be counted for the grant of benefits under the Proficiency
Step-up Scheme, 1988 and the ACP Scheme, 1998 and their claims were accepted by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana but were700
restricted to only the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988.
A
perusal of the impugned judgments would reveal that the Division Bench720 treated the Proficiency Step-up Scheme,
1988 and the ACP Scheme 1998 to be at par. On examining the judgments rendered
by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, we find
that the precise connotations of the Government Circular dated
1st December, 1988, which had introduced the Proficiency Step-up Scheme were
not considered in an apropos manner.
The
fundamental distinction in the present case is that the Policy
Circular whereby, the services of the appellants were800 regularised, gave a clear mandate that
the services of the work-charged employees would be regularised, and the past
services of such employees would be treated as qualifying service for
pensionary and all other consequential benefits. The High Court seems to840 have overlapped the ACP Scheme, 1998 and
the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 for denying relief to the appellants which
is not justifiable by any stretch of imagination.
A
writ petition filed by the State against the said order of the Tribunal
was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the
SLP preferred challenging the same, has been900 rejected by this Court vide order
dated 19th October, 2010. Thereafter, the Irrigation Department of the
Government of Punjab vide order dated 9th November, 2010 unconditionally
decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal.
In
view of discussion made above and in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the instant case, we feel that the differential
treatment could not have960
been meted out to the appellants herein who formed a part of the same
establishment and were similarly situated to the employees who were granted the
benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988.
Resultantly, we
hereby direct that the appellants1000
shall be entitled to have their services in the work-charged establishment
counted as qualifying service for Proficiency Step-up in accordance with the
Proficiency Step-up Scheme issued vide Government Circular dated 1st
December, 1988. The monetary benefits flowing from the above direction shall be
paid to the appellants within a period of six months from today.1055
