Nikka Singh vs Markfed Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner, by this writ petition, is challenging the order dated 14.6.1986 (copy annexure P/8) vide which the earlier order an-nexure P/2 was altered regarding the increments given to the petitioner for the period from 10.1.1979 to 11.4.1983.

Brief facts of the case are that service of the petitioner was terminated. However, he was ordered be reinstated by the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner states that the order of the Labour Court mentioned reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages and for the period between 12.1.1979 and 11.4.1983, the petitioner was treated as on leave of the kind due. The respondents have treated the said period as leave without pay. In annexure P/3, the period of absence being treated as leave without pay, it has been mentioned that it is not counted towards increment. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that:

No notice was given to the petitioner and he was not heard before earlier order in his favour was set aside;

Even if the period is treated as leave without pay, when continuity of service is to be considered, then increments arising in that intervening period cannot be denied to the petitioner.

Regarding the first point, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to ground No. 6(ii) mentioned in the petition in which he has stated that he was entitled to be heard and adequate opportunity was required to be given to him before the benefit was withdrawn with retrospective effect. He has also read the written statement on this point and the same does not clear this allegation that the petitioner was not heard. However, it is stated in the written statement that it is a clerical mistake which can be corrected at any time. It is difficult to treat the alteration, which is in the last column of annexure P/3, as clerical mistake. It is as under:

Date of annual increment.

Period of absence/LW from 10.1.1979 to 11.4.1983 and 13.4.1983 to 19.5.1983 not counted towards increment.

This is not a clerical mistake and the alteration is because according to the respondents as the period as treated as leave without pay, the benefit of increment is not granted. Thus, the petitioner has been able to make out a case that he was not heard when the impugned order was passed. This petition deserves to be allowed on this point and I do not want to go on the merits of the other points raised before me.

In the result, this petition is allowed. Impugned order annexure P/3 dated 14.6.1986 is set aside.

Petition allowed.