Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS challenge the order dated 29.11.1991 (Annexure P -1), to the effect that their work charge service be counted for the purpose of completion of 8 and 18 years of service, for grant of benefit of proficiency step -up.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued and reduction of salary of the petitioners was stayed. Respondents filed their written statement. The matter was admitted for regular hearing. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that most of the petitioners have retired from service, after attaining the age of superannuation. There was no allegation of misrepresentation against the petitioners. Referring to the facts and figures pointed out in para 2 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were rightly granted the benefit of proficiency step -up and it would be unjust on the part of respondent -State to withdraw the same after a long period. Finally, he prays for allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, disputes the factual aspect of the statement of learned counsel for petitioners and submits that out of fourteen, only nine petitioners have retired and five are still serving. Out of five serving petitioners, three are due for retirement in the year 2015 and two are due for retirement in the year 2018. He also submits that Annexure P -1 dated 29.11.1991, placed on record by the petitioners, was not complete copy of the document and the material word "not" was missing therein. He next submits that after thorough examination of the matter, the State, in its wisdom, has rightly decided that work charge service will not be counted for the purpose of completion of 8 and 18 years of service, for grant of benefit of proficiency step -up. Since, learned counsel for the petitioners have not argued on the validity of Annexure P -1, the writ petition was bound to fail and the same may be dismissed.;