C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008
Date of decision: 02.12.2009
Kuldip Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) Patiala and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 14980 of
2008 and Civil Writ Petition No. 7251 of 2006 both titled Kuldip Kaur
Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) Patiala and others, as the
common questions of law and facts are involved.
For brevity sake facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition
No. 14980 of 2008.
The petitioner was appointed as Steno with the Punjab State
Electricity Board on 30.4.1982. On 30.4.1998, petitioner was released
second promotional time bound scale and her salary was fixed
accordingly. On 7.5.1998, the petitioner was offered promotion to the
post of UDC. However, she declined to accept the promotion and her
request was accepted vide order dated 27.8.1998 vide which she was
allowed to forgo her promotion for a period of three years. On 2.5.2006,
C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008
-2-
the respondents ordered the recovery of amount from the petitioner on
the plea that the second promotional time bound scale granted to the
petitioner on 30.4.1998 was not due to her, as she had refused promotion
to the post of Upper Division Clerk.
The petitioner filed civil writ petition No. 7251 of 2006 to
challenge the recovery being made from her on the plea that the benefit
granted to the petitioner either rightly or wrongly could not be
withdrawn, as the petitioner had no role to play in grant of second
promotional time bound scale nor any fraud or mis-representation was
alleged against her.
This Court admitted the writ petition and stayed the recovery
of the amount said to have been paid in excess.
According to the respondents, under a mistake they continued
paying the salary to the petitioner on account of second promotional time
bound scale. On realising the mistake, an order was passed on 27.5.2008
refixing the salary of the petitioner by denying her second promotional
time bound scale till 1.1.2006 and ordered recovery of the amount paid
in excess on account of wrong fixation of salary.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.5.2008.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
contends, that the impugned order of withdrawal of second promotional
time bound scale cannot be sustained in law, as the same was granted to
the petitioner on 30.4.1998, whereas she had refused the offer of
promotion only on 7.5.1998, therefore, on the date of grant of
promotional scale, she was entitled thereto.
It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the
C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008
-3-
petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to second promotional time
bound scale despite refusal to accept the promotion. In support of this
contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in civil writ petition No. 6135 of
2003 titled Varinder Pal Vs. The State of Punjab and others decided on
5.7.2005, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has been pleased to lay
down as under: –
“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the view that the controversy raised in the instant
petition is covered by the Division Bench judgment of
this Court rendered in CWP No. 6049 of 1997 “Tipan
Chand Sharma and another Vs. State of Punjab and
others decided on 6.5.1998. This judgment has also
been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in
Shashi Kiran and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
2003(1) SCT 340. The view taken by this Court is that
merely because an employee has foregone his promotion
would not be sufficient to deny him the benefit of
proficiency step up after completion of 24/32 years of
service. The facts of present case are also similar as in
the impugned order the same reason for declining the
benefit of proficiency step up on completion of 24/32
years of service has been stated. Therefore, in our view
the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of the
judgments cited above. It is also pertinent to notice that
the learned State Counsel has not been able to
successfully dispute the aforementioned conclusion
drawn by us.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The
order Annexure P-7 dated 7.11.2002 is quashed and the
directions are issued to the respondents to release the
increments of proficiency step up after completion of
C.W.P. No. 14980 of 2008
-4-
24/32 years of service to the petitioner under the
Assured Career Progression Scheme with all
consequential benefits and also to refund recovered
amount of Rs.21,110/-.”
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that
object of giving second promotional time bound scale to an employee is
only to remove the hardship and stagnation for want of promotional
avenues and once the promotional avenue was available to the petitioner,
and she voluntarily did not accept it, she was not entitled to the second
promotional time bound scale, therefore, the order passed by the
respondents is in consonance with the object for which the rules
regarding promotional time bound scale were framed.
On consideration, I find that the relief claimed by the
petitioner is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in
Varinder Pal Vs. The State of Punjab and others (supra). Once the
petitioner has refused to accept the promotion and her request has been
accepted, the promotional time bound scale could not be denied to her,
as it is not mere offer but the actual promotion which could debar a
person to get the time bound scale as per rules.
For the reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed, the
impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the
consequential benefits. The arrears be released within three months of
receipt of certified copy of order.
No costs.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
December 02, 2009
R.S.
