- (1.) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release one additional increment on completion of 8 years service as a proficiency step up from the date it became due to the petitioners with arrears along with interest as admissible under the instructions of the State Government.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners joined as Vaidya (later designated as Ayurvedic Medical Officer) on ad hoc basis against the sanctioned post through Employment Exchange, Punjab. Petitioner No.1 joined the department on 07.10.1976, petitioner no.2 joined on 24.03.1977 and petitioner no.3 joined on 03.10.1979. The services of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 07.10.1976, 24.03.1977 and 03.10.1979 respectively, i.e. their initial date of joining on ad hoc basis, by an orderCWP No. 6950 of 1994 2 dated 07.05.1985 (Annexure P/2). That order has become final. The State Government issued instructions dated 01.12.1988 (Annexure P/3), in furtherance to the recommendations of the Third Punjab Pay Commission. On the basis of said instructions, State of Punjab decided to grant proficiency step up increments on rendering 8 years and 18 years of service on or after the appointed day i.e. 01.01.1986. The petitioners moved several representations (Annexures P/4 to P/6) in the year 1993, but, no reply was given to them.
(3.) Upon notice of this writ petition, respondents filed written statement and stated that proficiency step up is governed by non-statutory Government Instructions and there are no statutory rules governing the matter concerning proficiency step up. The writ jurisdiction in such situation cannot be invoked by the petitioners. In para No.7 of reply on merits, it has been admitted that the petitioners were regularized from the dates of their initial appointment vide order dated 07.05.1985 (Annexure P/2). It is, however, the case of the State that the services of the petitioners had been wrongly regularized w.e.f. the date of joining initial service i.e. ad hoc service. In fact, the petitioners were entitled to regularization only w.e.f. 01.04.1985.;