Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P -7) vide which the benefit of 23 years promotional scale as per "the time bound benefit of promotional scale instructions dated 23.4.1990" (hereinafter referred to as 'the instructions dated 23.4.1990') was withdrawn, and consequential order dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P -8) vide which the pay of the Petitioner was refixed w.e.f. 18.4.1992 by reducing it and further the order dated 5.8.2008 (Annexure P -9) whereby recovery of Rs. 1,60,360/ -has been made from the gratuity of the Petitioner as over drawn amount from 18.4.1992 to 31.3.2009.
(2.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was appointed as Oil Cleaner in the year 1968. He was promoted as Sub Station Attendant on 24.9.1971 and further promoted as Sub Station Officer on 30.8.1985. He, thus, gained only two promotions by the time, he became eligible for the grant of promotional increments under the time bound promotional scale on computation of 23 years service in the year 1992. Respondent -Board issued instructions dated 23.4.1990, of which, Clause 10 provided for the eligibility of an employee for claiming the benefit of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of regular service. As the Petitioner fulfilled those requirements, he was granted the promotional scale of the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (A.A.E.) vide order dated 23.8.1995 w.e.f. 18.4.1992. He continued to draw the same, when a show cause notice dated 3.3.2006 (Annexure P4/T) was issued to the Petitioner, on the basis of clarificatory instructions dated 6.8.2004, which said that for grant of third promotional scale benefit to the post of AAE (J.E. -I) an employee is required to pass Subordinate Accounts departmental examination. On this basis, as the Petitioner had not passed the subordinate accounts departmental examination show cause notice was issued to him calling upon him to explain as to why the benefit granted to him vide order dated 23.8.1995, be not withdrawn. The reply filed by the Petitioner was not accepted and vide order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P -7) promotional benefit granted to him after completion of 23 years of service was revoked. Resulting in refixation of pay of the Petitioner w.e.f. 18.4.1992 vide order dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P -8) and passing of the order of recovery dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P -9). Thereafter, the Petitioner was regularly promoted as AAE on 18.12.2006. He contends that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the light of the instructions dated 23.4.1990 (Annexure P -1), according to which he was granted the benefit of 23 years promotional scale and even if instructions dated 6.8.2004, which has been relied upon to withdraw the benefit of promotional scale granted to him vide order dated 23.8.1995, would only be prospective in affect, as it put a new condition which was neither envisaged, nor provided in the instructions dated 23.4.1990. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the impugned orders as the same are not sustainable. On the other hand, counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner would not have been entitled to the promotion, firstly, in the light of the fact that he had not passed the Departmental Subordinate Accounts Examination (DSAE), which is mandatory for a person to be granted the benefit of 23 years promotional scale, of the post of AAE or JE -I. As the Petitioner had not passed the DSAE he was not eligible for promotion for the post of AAE / J.E. -I and therefore could not have been granted the benefit in the year 1992 vide order dated 23.8.1995. He states that claim of the persons under the time bound promotional scheme and the regular promotions are through two different channels and the Petitioner having been promoted vide order dated 18.12.2006, the Petitioner cannot now claim benefit of the time bound promotional scale. He further submits, relying upon a letter dated 24.3.2008 ( Annexure R -1) addressed by the Petitioner to the Chief Engineer / Thermal, GNDTP, Bathinda, wherein he has himself permitted the deduction of the amount due i.e. Rs. 1.5 lacs to be made from his retiral benefits. Thus, contends that the Petitioner admits that the increment amount on his fixation while granting him 23 years promotional scale, was wrongly given to him. On this basis, he prays that the writ petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.;