IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion – Appellants shall be entitled to have their services in work-charged establishment counted as qualifying service for Proficiency Step-up(s) in accordance with Proficiency Step-up Scheme.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. 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,¹[Letters Patent Appeal No. 2309 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 2306 of 2011.] 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. The Learned Single Judge rejected the Civil Writ Petitions,²[C.W.P. No. 17985 of 2008 (O&M) and C.W.P. No. 6623 of 2004 (O&M).] preferred by the appellants for grant of benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 and Assured Career 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 the attention of this Court to the Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996, issued by the Department of Irrigation and Power (Irrigation Personnel-III), Government of Punjab, whereby, it was decided that the Government Policy contained in the 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 by the employees on work charged/daily basis will be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits.

3. 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, 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.

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