- (1.) Petitioner, who is a retired Horticulture Development Officer, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant him the benefit of annual grade increments w.e.f. 1.1.1971 to 31.12.1990 and place him in the revised pay scale of Rs.3700-5300 w.e.f. 1.1.1991 and in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16350 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 alongwith all the consequential benefits in the form of arrears of pay with interest @ 9% per annum. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.250-450 and he joined the duties on 29.1.1968. He is governed by the service rules called as Punjab Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules 1933 (in short, 1933 Rules). Petitioner was under probation and according to him, is deemed to have been confirmed on 29.1.1970. Petitioner was being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.250-450 till 31.10.197 without granting any annual grade increments on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination.
(2.) The pay scales were revised from 1.11.1977 and till 1.1.1978, the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.320-750. Petitioner used to get the basic pay of Rs.320/-. From 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1985, the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs.700-1200 and used to get the basic pay of Rs.700/-. From 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1990, petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000- 3500 and from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1995, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. During his entire service of 27 years, he was not given any annual grade increments. From 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996, the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.7220-11660 and from 11.11.1997 till his retirement, he was given the pay scale of Rs.12000-16350. It is claimed that as per Rule 8 of 1933 Rules, no period is prescribed for passing the departmental examination. There is no mention that if the employee fails to pass the departmental examination, his annual grade increments shall be stopped temporarily or permanent. Petitioner passed the departmental examination with higher standard on 11.11.1996 vide Annexure RI/T. It is stated that similarly situated employee Hans Raj, Horticulture Inspector, had not passed the departmental examination and was not given the benefit of annual grade increments. He filed a Civil Suit No.164 of 1987, claiming annual increments w.e.f. 1.11.1979. His suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.6.1989. The appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 22.6.1989 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 13.3.1990. Department accordingly revised his pay and granted pension, gratuity etc. on the said revised pay. Since, same relief was not granted to the petitioner, therefore he has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) In the reply, the department has not denied the appointment of the petitioner. The plea was taken that the petitioner was required to pass the departmental examination in accounts within the period of probation of two years, as required under Rules 8 and 9 of 1933 Rules. The petitioner failed to pass the said examination, therefore, he was not entitled to annual grade increments. He passed the departmental examination only on 11.11.1996 and as per provisions of Rule 4.9 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part I, he was granted the benefit of increments of pay from the date of his appointment except the payment of arrears of pay. He was also granted the benefit of fixation of pay in the revised scale from time to time and placed in the higher scale when he was found suitable on the basis of his service record. It was stated that the petitioner's case relates to the period from 29.1.1968 onwards. The petitioner retired on 31.7.2001. He did not challenge the action of the department till the year 2012 when he filed the present writ petition. Therefore, writ is barred by latches. Petitioner has tried to take undue benefit of Punjab Government notification dated 9.12.1998, which is applicable to the officers of Department of Agriculture, whose service conditions are governed by the Punjab Agriculture Service Rules, 1974, whereas service conditions of the petitioner are governed by 1933 Rules. It was further stated that since the petitioner failed to pass the departmental examination, therefore, vide order dated 8.9.1994, his probation period was extended upto 28.1.1995. As the petitioner qualified examination only on 11.11.1996, his probation was extended upto 10.11.1996 vide letter dated 26.2.1997. It was further stated that the service record of the petitioner was not clean. He was conveyed adverse remarks in the ACR for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997, against which, no representation was made. Therefore, he was found unsuitable for the placement in the senior scale of Rs.12000-16350 on 11.11.1996 and he was placed in the said scale after one year i.e. w.e.f. 11.11.1997 when he was found suitable for the same vide office order dated 7.12.1999. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.;