Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Jai Narain, AAG, Punjab., Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate and Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Namit Kumar J. 

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.3, whereby their claim for grant of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, has been rejected, with a further prayer to release the same with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioners joined the office of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar between the year 1969 to 1971 as Clerks and thereafter, they were promoted on 19.10.2004 and 20.10.2004 as Inspectors and they have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between the years 2005 to 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that they were entitled for the grant of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service in terms of Assured Career Progression Scheme (Annexure P-1) and since the said benefit was not granted to them while they were in service, petitioners No.1 to 6 served a legal notice dated 01.08.2013 upon the respondents for granting the said benefit and since no action was taken on the same, they approached this Court by filing a petition i.e. CWP No.24982 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2013, with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners by passing a speaking order, within a period of 02 months and in pursuance thereto, the claim of the petitioners have been rejected vide order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-3), which is being impugned in the present writ petition.

3. The reasoning for rejecting the claim of the petitioners as have been given in the impugned order, reads as under:-

"After carefully examining the whole matter and applying my mind, I have noticed that petitioners have already availed of more than two increments during their entire service career, as per Punjab Govt. Notification No. 7/37/98-5PPI/12851 dt. 23.9.98 duly adopted by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar which stipulated that the service rendered in the same post before 1-1-96 or the date opted for by an employee shall count for the purpose of the decisions governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules, 1998) and an employee shall be entitled to a maximum of two placements in higher scale and a maximum of two proficiency steps up in his entire service career under the scheme; and

Whereas all the above mentioned petitions were placed as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 1-1-1987 and they have already availed of more than two proficiency steps up in their entire service career under the assured career progression scheme after the implementation of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission and as such they are not entitled for the release of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service as per the assured career progression scheme 1998.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I reject the claim of the petitioners for getting the additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service as per the assured career progression scheme 1998 duly, notified by the Punjab Govt. Notification referred to above."

4. On issuance of notice of motion, respondent No.3 has filed the written statement wherein the claim of the petitioners has been opposed, firstly on the ground of delay and laches and secondly, on merits, it has been stated that the petitioners have already been granted the due benefits and they are not entitled for the additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service. With regard to delay and laches, it has been stated that the petitioners have retired from service between the year 2005 to 2009 and for the first time, they served a legal notice dated 01.08.2013, after inordinate delay especially when the relationship of employee and employer have already come to an end, on account of supera