G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, who retired from service in November, 1989, on attaining the age of superannuation, has filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant him pre -mature increment with effect from 8th February, 1978 in terms of Annexure P.5. He has also made a prayer for quashing Annexure, P.6 by which the Government has decided not to grant the benefit of the aforesaid pre -mature increment to an employee who was under suspension on 8th February, 1978.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that while the Petitioner was holding the post of Superintendent in the Colonization Department, Government of Punjab, he was placed under suspension, - -vide order dated 11th October, 1977 (Annexure. P.1) issued by the Director Colonization, Punjab, A departmental enquiry was initiated against him under Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 11th May, 1981 (Annexure P.3) and exonerated the Petitioner. Vide order dated 22nd May, 1981 (Annexure P.4) the disciplinary authority directed that the period of suspension, with effect from 11th October, 1977 to 23rd August, 1978, be treated as period spent on duty 1 per cent cut imposed on the pay of the Petitioner was restored. In the year 1978 employees of the Government of Punjab resorted to mass strike. However, some employees attended their duties. In order to give additional benefit to such employees. The Government of Punjab took a policy decision to grant one pre -mature increment to those employees who were on active duty on 8th February, 1978 and also to give them a letter of appreciation. This policy decision has been placed on record as Annexure P.5. On account of some controversies, a clarificatory letter dated 6th January, 1979 (Annexure P -6) was issued by the Government whereby amongst other things it clarified that an official who was under suspension on 8th February, 1978 shall not be entitled to the benefit of the said pre -mature increment. Petitioner has claimed that this decision of the Government is arbitrary and unreasonable because once the Government has treated the period of his suspension as spent on duty he will be deemed to have been on active service on 8th February, 1978 and will, therefore, be entitled to the grant of benefit of pro -mature increment. This plea is that by Annexure P.6 an arbitrary discrimination has been practised by the Government qua the employees who were under suspension on the relevant date.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have rebutted the claim of the Petitioner by asserting that the benefit off the premature increment was given to those employees who had attended their duty on 8th February, 1978 and an employee who was under suspension cannot be treated to have attended his duty. Their plea is that the object of grant of premature increment was to give incentive to the employee who had not participated in the strike and had attended their duties in opposition to the call of strike.;