Bakhshish Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—The State of Punjab issued instructions on September 1, 1960 provided for 2 and 3 advance increments to M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed master who had improved their qualification securing a 3rd Division or a Ist or IInd Division respectively. As this benefit was being denied to the petitioner he alongwith others filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1985 which was allowed on 21.2.1986 and the LPA and SLP filed thereafter were also dismissed. Vide order dated 9.2.88 petitioner was accordingly granted three increments with effect from 8.9.1977 as he had obtained a 2nd Division in his M.A. course and the arrears were also paid thereafter. The benefit of three increments was, however, withdrawn from the petitioner on the premise that he had passed his first M.A. examination with a third Division and that the second MA passed by him in IInd Division was a subsequent one and as such benefit of three advance increments had been wrongly given as he had been entitled to only two such increments. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil writ petition No. 11528 of 1994 which too was allowed on 19.7.1995 and the said order was quashed but liberty was left with the respondents to pass a fresh order after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was given a show cause notice annexure P/3 and after a consideration of his reply, respondent No. 3 passed an order annexure P/5 dated 28.10.96 and re-iterated the earlier decision withdrawing the benefit of three increments given to the petitioner and conforming it only to two increments. The petitioner also filed an appeal but as the same was not entertained, he has once again come to the Court, impugning the order annexure P/5.

Notice was issued to the respondents and accepted by the Addl. Advocate General, Punjab in Court on 21.1.1998 and the matter was adjourned to 23.3.1998 for the purpose of filing a written statement. The case was thereafter taken up on 17.4.1998 and adjourned to 21.5.1998 and then 9.7.1998 giving a last opportunity to the State to file its reply. On 9.7.1998 the matter was adjourned giving yet another opportunity to file the reply. No reply has been filed even today. The matter, is therefore, being taken up on the pleadings as they exist on the file.

Mr. Ishwar Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner had passed on M.A. in 3rd Division in 1974 and the second one in the IInd Division in 1977 and as the petitioner had not claimed the benefit of advance increments on the basis of the M.A. Degree obtained in 1974 and had based his claim on the basis of the M.A. degree in 1977 he was entitled to three advance increments.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The instructions relevant to the issue are reproduced below: -

"Sanction of the Government of Punjab is accorded to the grant of advance increments to the Masters working in their Punjab Education Department, who improve/have improved their educational qualification in the manner detailed below:-

Personnel Name of improved Extent of advance Qualifications increments

Master (110-8-190/10-250) 2 increments M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. (3rd Division) M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. 3 increments (Ist or IInd Division) 3. The advantage will be enjoyed only once and not got going any subsequent M.A. It will not be available to those who were given higher start on entry for being M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed.

These orders will take effect from the date of issue.

In the original dates of increments shall remain unchanged and the persons concerned should be allowed to retain their old dates of increments."

In the evident from the instructions that the controversy would revolve around an interpretation of paragraph 3 above. To my mind the word "advantage will be enjoyed only once and net for doing any subsequent M.A." is to be construed as meaning that the benefit will be given for one M.A. degree only and not for a second one. To my mind it would be open to a master to claim the benefit on one M.A. degree to his best knowledge at whatever stage he may chose to do so and the mere facts he had passed one M.A. earlier would not preclude the claiming the benefit of a second M.A. provided he had not taken advantage of the Ist M.A. This interpretation flows from the fact that the instruction being beneficent in nature, must be interpreted to the best advantage of an employee, without doing violence to its wording. It is the conceded position that the petitioner had not claimed any benefit on account of the M.A. degree obtained in 1974 and that he had been granted the benefit of three advance increments on having got a IInd Division M.A. Degree in the year 1977. To my mind, therefore, the order annexure P/5 withdrawing the benefit of three advance increments was not justified. Thus petition is accordingly allowed, the order dated 18.8.1996 annexure P/5 is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant three advance increments to the petitioner forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.