Raj Kumar Chopra vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—Replies to the main petition as well as to CM No. 5003 of 2013 have been filed. Copies supplied. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order reducing his pay on account of the fact that after having been promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer, he did not clear the departmental examination for a period of three years as mandated by the rule.

At the time when this writ petition was filed, the petitioner had taken various grounds including that no such order could have been passed after his retirement. However, thereafter the petitioner filed CM No. 5002 of 2013 seeking permission to place on record copy of the order dated 27.3.2009 (Annexure P-5), whereby in the case of similarly situated employee, namely, Prem Chand Mittal who had also not cleared his departmental examination within three years of his promotion as Sub Divisional Engineer, respondent No. 1 had directed that pay of that employee would be re-fixed on the substantive post held by him at the time of his retirement. It was further directed that the said employee would not be paid any arrears on the pay so fixed on the substantive post and benefit of this pay fixation would be given only for the purpose of retiral benefits. It was further stated that the said benefit was being given under the provisions of the note given under Rule 4.14(2) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-I Part-I. The said order further sought details of similarly situated employees so that similar orders could be passed in their cases also.

In CM No. 5003 of 2013, the petitioner prayed that he would be satisfied if the same course of action is adopted in his case also. In reply to the said application, the facts have been admitted. The only reason given for opposing the prayer is that the order in Prem Chand Mittal''s case was passed on the basis of the judgment dated 19.2.2009 rendered in CWP No. 2381 of 2007, Prem Chand Mittal vs. State of Punjab and others. A perusal of the order, Annexure P-5, reveals that the stand taken by the respondents is not entirely correct. Though a reference has been made to the decision dated 19.2.2009 yet, as noticed above, the order, Annexure P-5, was passed under the provisions of the note given under Rule 4.14(2) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-I Part-I. Even otherwise, once a particular course has been adopted for a particular employee, it would not be open for the State to take a different view for some other similarly situated employee.

In the circumstances, the prayer now made is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be given the same benefit as was given to the aforesaid Prem Chand Mittal by order Annexure P-5. Let necessary exercise of re-fixing the pay and releasing the benefits in the above terms be made within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order and the revised retiral benefits be released to the petitioner within three months thereafter. It is made clear that in case the due benefit is not released to the petitioner within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of his retirement till the date of payment. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.