The main legal point established is that the ACP Scheme is not applicable to retirees who had already retired before its implementation, and that a petition lacking merit and filed after a significant delay may be dismissed.

B.S. WALIA, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash impugned order dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) as also letter/communication dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-2) whereby the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of pay equal to that of his junior and for grant of ACP benefit on completion of four years service has been rejected. Prayer is also for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of ACP Scheme dated 03.11.2006 to the extent it is applicable only w.e.f. 01.11.2006. Further prayer is that the benefit of ACP Scheme be given to the petitioner as he had completed 6 years of service on the post of Director and had retired on 30.04.2006, and there was no basis for making a distinction /classification between pre 01.11.2006 and post 01.11.2006 retirees. Another prayer is for direction's to the respondents to re-fix and to step up the pay of the petitioner and grant him all benefits in respect thereto qua pension and other retirement benefits etc.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service as Director, State Planning Board on 30.04.2006. Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 3.11.2006 (Annexure P-6) is for grant of benefits w.e.f. 01.11.2006 on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service in the cadre. Grievance is that one Jasbir Singh, who was junior to the petitioner was granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 03.11.2006 w.e.f. 01.11.2006. The Assured Career Progression Scheme is applicable only w.e.f. 01.11.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner was not in service on 01.11.2006, having retired on 30.04.2006. Consequentially, the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Consequentially, claim for stepping up of pay of the petitioner at par with his junior is also without any merit since, admittedly, junior to the petitioner i.e. Jasbir Singh, retired from service on 30.09.2009. In other words, the junior of the petitioner was in service on the date on which the Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 03.11.2006 came into force. As regards the claim of the petitioner for grant of the revised pay scales, learned counsel contends that the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules 2009 were notified on 27.05.2009 and were deemed to have come into force on or w.e.f 01.01.2006. Learned counsel by relying upon Note-5 of Rule 7 contended that since the petitioner was getting more pay than Jasbir Singh his junior in the same cadre prior to 01.01.2006 and his pay was fixed in the revised pay band at a stage lower than that of Jasbir Singh, he was entitled for his pay to be stepped up to the same stage in the revised pay band as of his junior Jasbir Singh. The petitioner claims to have made representations from time to time after his retirement for the grant of benefit under the ACP by making the same applicable to persons who had retired prior to 01.11.2006 as also for the grant of benefits under the revised pay rules. Eventually, the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of pay equal to Jasbir Singh in the light of his representations dated 29.09.2014, 05.01.2015, 24.04.2015, 05.08.2015, 11.01.2016 and 18.04.2016 was rejected vide memo No.PSPB (6PB-Pay-Anamoly/2016/3213) dated 05.07.2016-Annexure P-2. The petitioner was informed that under Revised Pay Rules, 2006, ACP Scheme was implemented from 01.11.2006 whereas the petitioner had retired from Government service on 30.04.2006 and in the circumstances, while his junior Jasbir Singh had been given the benefit of ACP Scheme as he had continued in Government service upto his superannuation on 30.09.2009, there were no instructions on the basis of which pay of a retired employee could be made equal i.e. stepped up to the pay being drawn by employees in service or at par with other employee who had retired after him.

4. The petitioner filed CWP No.540 of 2017 with a prayer for