Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P -4) whereby benefit of 23 years promotional increment, granted to the him vide order dated 19.2.2008 (Annexure P -3), was cancelled.
(2.) FACTS in the present case are not in dispute. Petitioner was granted 23 years promotional increment vide Annexure P -3 dated 19.2.2008. The said benefit was cancelled vide Annexure P -4 which reads as under: - The benefit of 23 years promotional increment sanctioned to Sh. Sukhminder Singh AAE S/o. Bhag Singh, Sub -Division Moga vide this office order No. 118 dated 19.2.2008 w.e.f. 6.10.2004 is hereby cancelled vide this office order, because the employee/officer has not passed Engineer Officer's examination. This is being issued with the approval of Chief Engineer/DS (West) Bathinda. Aggrieved against the order Annexure P -4, petitioner submitted notice of demand on the respondents (Annexure P -5). Annexure P -6 is the reply to the said notice and the same reads as under: - In respect of above subject, it is hereby informed that Para No. 1 and 2 are correct and the Induction Post shown as per Para No. 3 is incorrect, as in accordance with the performa enclosed by the office, the Induction Post has been shown as that of JE -2. In accordance with Para No. 4, on raising objection by EAD, Patiala vide its letter No. 10317 dated 14.11.2008, the concerned employee of Accounts Branch of this office vide its letter No. 2651 dated 25.3.2010 wrote to Accounts Officer, Faridkot that the retired officer mentioned under subject (Er. Sukhminder Singh Gill) did not pass Departmental Examination, whereas, now after perusal of the service book of the employee, it has come to notice that the retired officer (Er. Sukhminder Singh Gill) had passed papers in the month of 3/02 and 9/02 and the reply of Para no. 5, 6 and 7 is in accordance with reply of Para No. 4. With regard to Para Nos. 8 and 9, on perusal of personal file of retired officer, it has been found that the retired officer has not raised demand for granting 23 years benefit again after cancellation of the same.
(3.) THUS , as per the reply submitted by the respondents, it is evident that petitioner had passed the departmental examination in March 2002 and September 2002. Therefore, the order (Annexure P -4), is liable to be set aside as it was passed on the assumption that petitioner had not passed the Engineer Officer's examination. In view of the reply (Annexure P -6), this writ petition deserves to be allowed.;