Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3296
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Surya Kant, Sudip Ahluwalia, JJ.
High Court Of Punjab And Haryana - Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Dass-i - Respondent
LPA No.83 of 2016
Decided On : 31-08-2018
Raman B. Gard, Advocate, for the Appellant; J.N. Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent
The nature of minor punishment like 'warning' should not impede the growth of an employee's service career, especially when their performance subsequently improved.
Headnote:
Pre-mature Increments - Employment Dispute - - [High Court Act, 1989, Section 4(IV)] - The court discussed the provisions of the High Court Act, 1989, particularly Section 4(IV), which entitled Class IV employees to 2 pre-mature increments if they had earned 4 Good reports in the six preceding years. The court emphasized that the nature of minor punishment like 'warning' should not impede the growth of an employee's service career, especially when their performance subsequently improved. The denial of increments to the respondent, despite consistent good performance, was deemed unjustified.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Class-IV employee of the High Court, sought pre-mature increments upon retirement. Despite a consistent good performance, he was denied the increments due to two recorded warnings in the past.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of increments to the respondent, despite his consistent good performance and the grant of similar increments to other employees, was unjustified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was entitled to pre-mature increments despite having received recorded warnings in the past.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of minor punishment like 'warning' should not impede the growth of an employee's service career, especially when their performance subsequently improved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant three months' time to implement the order of the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J. (Oral) -
C.M. No.3535 of 2018.
Application is allowed.
Document i.e. policy (Annexure A-4) is taken on record.
C.M. No.189 of 2016
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, application is allowed.
Delay of 220 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA No.83 of 2016
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the High Court against the order dated 04.05.2015 vide which learned Single Judge accepted the claim of respondent for the grant of two pre-mature increments and has held him entitled to the arrears thereof within three months, failing which the respondent was further held entitled to claim interest @8% per annum.
3. The respondent was a Class-IV employee on the establishment of the High Court. He has retired from service after serving for 42 years. From the extracts of the original record produced by the High Court (Annexure A-4), it appears that some officials made representations to grant them three advance increments. Some of the Judges also recommended to grant pre-mature increments to their staff. The then Chief Justice vide orders dated 4/5 October, 1989 granted advanced increments to various staff members. This led to heart burning amongst the employees, who too sought similar benefit. Their representations were put up before the Committee of two Hon'ble Judges, who made the following recommendations on 19.12.1989:-
"However, no person shall be eligible for advance increment if he is facing any departmental action or has suffered penalty during the said period.
IV) We are also of the opinion that all the Class IV employees, who have earned 4 Good (+B) reports in the six preceding years, shall also be entitled to 2 pre-mature increments. This will meet the ends of justice and equity;
As regards the recommendation made at page 35(a) & (b), we do not find it in the fitness of things to grant them any increment other than within the frame-work mentioned above. In any case, if case of an individual having outstanding merit or having been granted Merit Certificate is found out, his case would be considered individually for the grant of additional increment.
This frame-work and benefit would be application to all the employees who have completed at least six years of service in the High Court."
(emphasis applied)
4. These recommendations were approved by the then Acting Chief Justice on 24.03.1990.
5. Then the issue arose as to whether or not the employees to whom minor punishment like 'censure' or 'warning' had been issued be also granted pre-mature increment as per their service record. This issue was separately examined by the registry and one of the proposals put up before the then Acting Chief Justice was that "Even warning is not a penalty. They may also be ignored for the grant of pre-mature increments." The then Acting Chief Justice agreed and approved the office note on 12.04.1990.
6. The respondent was unfortunately served with two 'warnings' in the years 1985 and 1986 and he was thus denied pre-mature increments, though he had earned four good reports during the relevant period. The representation made by the respondent for grant of pre-mature increments was declined on 21.08.1999.
7. Meanwhile, some other employees of the High Court (Baldev Singh Jaswal, Senior Assistant and others) approached this Court on judicial side by way of CWP No.4668 of 1993 against denial of two pre-mature increments on the ground that they were administered 'warnings'. Their claim was accepted by a learned Single Judge on 06.10.1997 though in terms of an earlier decision of this Court dated 17.12.1991 passed in CWP No.7448 of 1991. The learned Single Judge held the writ petitioners entitled to payment of two pre-mature increments from 24.03.1990 irrespective of imposition of minor penalty of 'warning' on them.
8. We are informed that the High Court implemented the decision of learned Single Judge in Baldev Singh Jaswal's case (supra) and no appeal was filed.
9. No sooner this Court decided Ba
