- (1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing orders dated 1.5.1997/23.5.1997 (Annexure PA) and order dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure P. 7) whereby promotional increment granted to the petitioner under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume I, Part I (for brevity 'the rules') has been withdrawn. It is undisputed that the petitioner was initially appointed as J.B.T. w.e.f. 1.1.1980. Subsequently she acquired higher qualification and was granted higher pay scale w.e.f. 19.7.1980 in view of the policy letter dated 23.7.1957 issued by composite State of Punjab. A copy of the letter dated 9.3.1995 granting higher scale of Rs. 585-1050 from 19.7.1980 to the petitioner is attached with the petition as Annexure P. 1. This scale was later on revised to Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The petitioner was promoted as Social Study Mistress w.e.f. 25.2.1994 (Annexure P.2) in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and was granted one increment under Rule 4.4 of the Rules w.e.f. 25.2.1994. The petitioner continued to enjoy the benefit of promotion increment till 30.9.2004 on which date she got pre-mature retirement. Pension case of the petitioner was also sent on the basis of last salary including promotional increment in December, 2004. Respondent no. 2 vide office order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure P. 3) directed respondent no. 2 to re-fix the salary of the petitioner by withdrawing the benefit of promotional increment as she was not entitled to this benefit as she was already getting master scale before her promotion. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 issued the impugned order dated 1.5.1997/23.5.1997 (Annexure PA) wherein he sought clarification from the Finance Department that promotional increment cannot be granted to an employee if he was getting same scale equivalent to that of promotional scale before his promotion. Principal of the School served a show cause notice on the petitioner on 21.8.2005 (Annexure P. 5) that benefit of promotional increment granted to her shall be withdrawn, her pay shall be reduced accordingly and recovery of Rs. 32,000/- (approximately) shall be effected from her gratuity. The petitioner duly replied to the show cause notice and requested that she was rightly granted promotional increment under Rule 4.4 of the rules. It was also alleged that same benefit has also been given to many other similarly situated persons. The Principal of the School rejected the reply of the petitioner vide order dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure P. 7). The prayer now made is that according to Rule 4.4(a)(1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I (for brevity 'the Rules') the petitioner is entitled to the grant of one promotional increment.
(2.) After hearing learned counsel, we are of the considered view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner as she has already enjoyed better pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. It would be appropriate to make a reference to rule 4.4(a) of the rules which reads as under : "4.4 The initial substantive pay of a Government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on a time scale of pay is regulated as follows : (a) If he holds a lien on a permanent post, other than a tenure post, or would hold lien on such a post had his, lien not been suspended- (i) when appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purposes of rule 4.13) than these attaching to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post; (ii) When appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale which is equal to his substantive pay in respect of the old post, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay plus personal pay equal to the difference, and in either case will continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the time scale of the old post or for the period after which an increment is earned in the time scale of the new post, whichever is less. But if the minimum of the time scale of the new post is higher than his substantive pay in respect of the old post he will draw that minimum as initial pay. (iii) When appointment to the new post is made on his own request under Rule 3.17(a) and maximum pay in the time scale of that post is less than his substantive pay in respect of the old post, he will draw that maximum as initial pay."
(3.) The matter is not res-integra. In catena of judgments, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has taken the view that in such circumstances no benefit of Rule 4.4(a) of the rules would be available. In the case of State of Haryana and another V/s. Partap Singh and others, 2006 12 JT 406 this very question was considered when certain JBT teachers on acquiring the higher qualification of B.A.B.Ed. had initially approached this Court which allowed the benefit of Rule 4.4 of the Rules. However, reversing the view taken by this Court and after referring to Rule 4.4(a), their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under : "The above rule says that when appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to such permanent post, the incumbent will draw as initial pay the stage of time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post meaning thereby that the promotion which involves responsibilities of greater importance then in that case the incumbent will draw as initial pay the stage of time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post. That means he will be entitled to one increment in the old post. But in the present case, the respondents are already drawing the pay scale of the post of Master i.e. higher post. As such, where is the question of granting them one increment further now? Under Rule 4.4 it could have been possible to grant them fixation if they were continuing in the old scale of JBT teachers and on their promotion to the post of Master, then certainly they would have been entitled to fixation of pay giving them the initial pay at the stage of time scale next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post. But they are already fixed in the pay scale of higher post of Master which though legitimately they were not entitled to because of the change in the policy but they continue in the higher pay scale despite the change in the policy and the Government did not take any further steps to put the house in proper order. Be that as it may, since the respondents were drawing the higher pay scale on acquiring of higher educational qualifications, i.e. the Master's pay scale, and now only regular orders have been passed, promoting them as Master, there is no question of again fixing them next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post.they are not holding the old post any more and they were not drawing the salary of JBT teachers i.e. the old post. Therefore, there is no question of granting them the initial pay the stage of time scale next above their substantive pay in respect of the old post." Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab V/s. Lal Singh, 1996 11 SCC 657; Union of India and others V/s. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, 1998 5 SCC 242 and State of Haryana and others V/s. Sumitra Devi and others, 2004 12 SCC 322.;