- (1.) The petitioner was allegedly inducted into the service of the respondents as a Driver on 19.4.1975. On the basis of his aforesaid date of appointment, he claims to have been completed 24 years of service on 19.4.1999. On account of completing 24 years of service, he claims proficiency step up on account of the fact that he was not the beneficiary of a single promotion ever since his induction into service. The instant claim by the petitioner was declined by an order dated 30.11.2000. The relevant part of the aforesaid order is being extracted hereunder: Whatever benefits are to be given under the above instructions dated 15.9.98 of the Punjab Government, same are to be given if the beneficiary employee has qualification provided under rules for promotion to next post. Under the rules of operational staff of class-3 of 1977, promotional post of driver is Yard Master and matriculation is provided as educational qualification for promotion as Yard Master. So benefit under the above instructions of government given in the subject can be granted only to those drivers who have educational qualification of matriculation. The condition of matriculation for promotion as Yard Master from the post of Driver has been waived from the Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Services, Class-3 Rules 1977 vide government notification dated 7.6.2000. Now this benefit under the above scheme is also to be given to drivers having qualification of less than matriculation. But as per guidance given by Head Office this benefit to drivers having qualification less than matriculation is to be given from the date of amendment means from 7.6.2000. So in future the cases for giving benefits to drivers under above scheme be sent this office after preparing under these instructions/amendment along with your recommendations and cases of those drivers be also sent this office for review whose qualification is not matriculation and benefit under A.C.P. Scheme has been given before 7.6.2000.
(2.) The aforesaid order is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioner.
(3.) The first question to be adjudicated upon is whether proficiency step up can be declined on account of the fact that an employee does not satisfy the terms and conditions including qualification prescribed for promotion to a higher scale. Insofar as the instant issue is concerned, learned Counsel for the parties have invited our attention to the policy instructions dated 25.9.1998 dealing with the placement in higher scale and proficiency step up. Learned Counsel for the respondents has further brought to our notice paragraph 4 of the aforesaid policy instructions, which is being extracted hereunder: 4. Placement in higher scale and proficiency steps-up under this policy shall be granted only to those employees whose overall service record is adjudged as 'good' if a departmental test is prescribed or requisition of higher qualification is a requisites for promotion to the higher level than on those employees who clear such test or acquire such qualifications would be eligible for benefits under this scheme.;