Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 872
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 17529-17530 OF 2017
GURMEET SINGH AND ORS. ETC. .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
th
1. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 17 August,
2012 rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and
1
Haryana whereby, the intra-court appeals preferred by the
th
appellants herein were dismissed and the judgment dated 11
August, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
was upheld. The Learned Single Judge rejected the Civil Writ
2
Petitions preferred by the appellants for grant of benefits under
the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 and Assured Career
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2024.11.18
16:43:50 IST
Reason:
1
Letters Patent Appeal No. 2309 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 2306 of 2011.
2
C.W.P. No. 17985 of 2008 (O&M) and C.W.P. No. 6623 of 2004 (O&M).
1
Progression Scheme, 1998, by accounting for their entire service
period including that in the work charged establishment.
2. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that
the Government of Punjab has on its own volition, extended the
very same benefits of 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
th
the attention of this Court to the Policy Circular dated 13 March,
1996, issued by the Department of Irrigation and Power (Irrigation
Personnel-III), Government of Punjab, whereby, it was decided that
th
the Government Policy contained in the letter dated 7 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 by the employees on work charged/daily basis will be
treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other
consequential benefits.
2
3. Learned senior counsel further referred to various
communications and circulars, more specifically to the Circular
th
dated 12 April, 2005 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department, Punjab, whereby, it was communicated as below: -
“All the aforementioned judgements which have been allowed
by the Hon’ble Courts in favour of the petitioners were filed by
various categories of employees for counting of their work
charge service rendered prior to regularisation of their services
for granting 8/18 years of proficiency step-up(s).
In this regard this be informed that how many similar
employees of different categories had left who are entitled
for the grant of proficiency step up(s) for 8/18 years after
counting their work charge service rendered prior to their
regularisation. After clarifying the position, the complete
report be sent to this office within 15 days. In addition to
aforesaid, this be also conveyed that by doing so from which
date the official will be entitled for the grant of 8 and 18 years
of proficiency step-up(s) and how much financial burden will
have to be bore by the government. You will solely be liable for
not sending the complete report as required aforesaid within
the stipulated time.”
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, thus, submitted
that the appellants herein are entitled to reliefs sought for in these
appeals by reversing/modifying the judgment rendered by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court as upheld by the learned
Division Bench.
5. During the course of submissions, Shri P.S. Patwalia had
restricted the claims of the appellants to the benefits under the
Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988.
3
6. Per contra , Shri Shadan Farasat, learned AAG representing
the State, vehemently and fervently 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
the cases where such employees were granted the said relief in
compliance of the orders passed by the courts in judicial
proceedings. Nonetheless, Shri Farasat was not in a position to
th
dispute the fact that the Circular dated 12 April, 2005 issued by
the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab, clearly
provides for the grant of Proficiency Step-up(s) to employees of
different categories who were left out after the various judgments
of the courts, without any court orders being in force qua such
employees.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned
judgments. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties,
we have thoroughly examined the material available on record.
8. The primary issue that arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the service rendered by the appellants herein as
work charge employees prior to regularisation is to be accounted
4
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.
9. 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 counted for qualifying service for pensionary and
all other consequential benefits is not in dispute as the same is
th
clearly discernible from the Policy Circular dated 13 March, 1996
3
referred to supra . However, a significant bulk of litigation in the
4
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 charge employee should be
counted for the grant of benefits under the Proficiency Step-up
Scheme, 1988 and the Assured Career Progression Scheme
(ACPS), 1998 and their claims were accepted by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana but were restricted to only the Proficiency
5
Step-up Scheme, 1988. Out of these writ petitions , the order
passed in C.W.P. No. 219 of 2003, was challenged by the State of
Punjab before this Court in SLP(C) No. 7798 of 2004, which stands
3
Refer, Para 2.
4
C.W.P. No. 5738 of 1999, C.W.P. No. 17315 of 2001 and C.W.P. No. 219 of 2003.
5
Supra , Note 4
5
th
dismissed vide order dated 28 April, 2004 and the order of the
High Court was affirmed.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgments would reveal that the
Division Bench treated the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 and
the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), 1998 to be at par .
However, on a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge which has been affirmed by the Division Bench, it is
clear that the learned Single Judge took note of the earlier
judgment of the High Court, in relation to the same controversy
passed in Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Punjab
and Anr. v. President Sri Natha Singh, Thein Dam Workers
6
Union (CITU) & Anr. , which had approved the claims of the work-
charge employees in respect of the Proficiency Step-up Scheme,
7
1988. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge while relying upon
the judgment in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and
8
Ors. v. Jagjiwan Ram & Ors. , denied the relief to the appellants
herein.
6
C.W.P. No. 20422 of 2005.
7
This order was challenged before this court in SLP(C) No. 12754 of 2006 and the said SLP
th
was dismissed vide order dated 19 October, 2010.
8
(2009) 3 SCC 661.
6
11. On examining the judgments rendered by the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, we find that the
st
precise connotations of the Government Circular dated 1
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 were regularised,
gave a clear mandate that the services of the work charge
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 to have
overlapped the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), 1998
and the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 for denying relief to the
appellants which is not justifiable by any stretch of imagination.
12. This controversy was examined in a reference made to the
9
Industrial Tribunal, Punjab in the case of President, Thein Dam
Workers Union (CITU), Shahpur Kandi (Pathankot) v.
10
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Punjab & Anr.
th
The Tribunal vide its order dated 10 August, 2005 held that in
9
Hereinafter, referred to as “Tribunal.”
10
Reference No. 39 of 2004.
7
th
view of the regularisation policy dated 13 March, 1996, the work
charge service of an employee before his regularisation is liable to
11
be counted for grant of Proficiency Step-up(s). A writ petition filed
by the State against the said order of the Tribunal was dismissed
12
by the Division Bench of the High Court and the SLP preferred
challenging the same, has been rejected by this Court vide order
th
dated 19 October, 2010. Thereafter, the Irrigation Department of
th
the Government of Punjab vide order dated 9 November, 2010
unconditionally decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal.
13. 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 have 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.
14. Resultantly, we hereby direct that the appellants shall be
entitled to have their services in the work-charged establishment
counted as qualifying service for Proficiency Step-up(s) in
accordance with the Proficiency Step-up Scheme issued vide
11
Supra , Note 6.
12
SLP(C) No. 12754 of 2006.
8
st
Government Circular dated 1 December, 1988. The monetary
benefits flowing from the above direction shall be paid to the
appellants within a period of six months from today.
15. The impugned judgments are reversed and set aside
accordingly. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No orders
as to costs.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….……….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
November 18, 2024
9