Employees cannot have earned increments withheld due to pending criminal charges without formal adjudication, as increments are a vested right based on past service performance.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2024(Annexure P-12) rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of notional benefits of annual increments from the date when petitioner successfully passed the type test along with interest @ 9% Per annum on account of alleged non-sanction of probation period due to pendency of FIR. Further for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to confirm the probation period on completion of two years of service w.e.f 15.10.2003 as the petitioner is deemed to have cleared the probation period when he was allowed to work beyond 15.10.2003 and to fix the pay of petitioner after granting him notional benefits of annual increments w.e.f. 15.10.2002 and pay the actual benefits of annual increments from the date he successfully passed the type test. Lastly, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 4-9-14 years of service along with interest and to consider him to higher post, as per Bye Laws and Rules applicable to the respondent-Corporation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 20.09.2001 on compassionate grounds on account of demise of his father and joined services on 15.10.2001. Further, one of the conditions incorporated in the appointment letter is with regard to clearing the type test. He had successfully completed three years of tenure, as such, he is deemed to have cleared the probation as provided under the Rule 11 of Probation of Members of Service in the service byelaws of PUNSUP dealing with the probation. The maximum period of probation as per service rules is two years which can be extended upto three years. He has completed the three years of service to the satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation and would be deemed to be confirmed for the post. He relies upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Versus Dharam Singh , AIR 1968 SC 1210 . The entitlement of petitioner for annual increments have been denied on the ground that he has not cleared the type test, whereas, he has cleared the same held on 13.03.2020, discernible from Annexure P-6. As such, after clearing the type test, he is entitled to the increments. No outer limit was provided in the applicable rules with regard to the maximum duration to clear the type test and the respondent- Corporation has not implemented and adopted the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab. Although the Board of Directors approved the same in its meeting held on 27.07.2016. The instructions in this regard were issued to exempt the employees appointed on compassionate grounds, who could not clear the type test, rather they should be allowed to get the requisite training. The petitioner fulfils the eligible criteria for grant of ACP scheme adopted by the respondent-Corporation, however, claim of the petitioner for benefits of annual increments, ACP Scheme and promotion was denied vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure P-12) on account of lodging of FIR against the petitioner. On the other hand, the persons working in the Department who are juniors to the petitioner have been promoted and the respondent-Corporation has passed the confirmation order on completion of probation of identical employees against whom the criminal cases are pending, as is discernible from order dated 30.06.2023 and 06.03.2024(Annexure P-15