Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Mani And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049805
CWP-19774-2020 -1- 2024:PHHC:049805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(255)
CWP-19774-2020
Date of decision: - 15.04.2024
Gaurav Mani and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Neha Sonawane, DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the memo dated 29.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) vide
which the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme as
formulated vide Policy Circular dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) has
been declined to the category of Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers
working in the department.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers in the State of Punjab on
different dates and were subsequently promoted and retired and reference
in that regard has been made to Annexure P-1. It is further submitted that
the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049805
CWP-19774-2020 -2- 2024:PHHC:049805
Reforms (Personnel Policies Brach) issued the instructions dated
25.09.1998 (Annexure P-2) to implement the recommendations of 4th Pay
Commission with regard to the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and a
perusal of the same shows that every employee of the State of Punjab has
been granted some financial benefits after completion of 8 years, 6 years,
24 years and 32 years of service in lieu of their stagnation in promotional
avenue. It is stated that thereafter, the Government of Punjab had issued
instructions dated 27.06.2000 (Annexure P-3) for removal of anomalies
and thereafter, vide notification dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) had
notified a new Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 4, 9
and 14 years of service in a cadre and the said scheme was made
applicable w.e.f. 01.11.2006 and the said new scheme was made optional.
It is further stated that the petitioners had opted for the new scheme, but
the said option was kept pending by the department authorities as the
applicability of the ACP Scheme dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) to the
Junior Engineer cadre was pending with the Government and has thus
submitted that the option was to be sought after a final decision was taken
in this regard. It is submitted that however, vide a cryptic and non-
speaking order dated 29.04.2010 (Annexure P-5), the State of Punjab took
a decision that the benefit of ACP could not be granted to the Junior
Engineers and aggrieved against the said decision, some of the Junior
Engineers, who were similarly placed as the present petitioners, had filed
a petition bearing CWP-16446-2010 before this Court and a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 20.05.2013 (Annexure P-6)
allowed the said writ petition and set aside order dated 29.04.2010 and
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049805
CWP-19774-2020 -3- 2024:PHHC:049805
held the petitioners therein entitled to the benefit of the instructions dated
03.11.2006 and has also ordered that the consequential benefits be
released to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of order and in case, the petitioners, who had not
opted for the applicability of the Scheme dated 03.11.2006, a period of
one month be granted to them to exercise the said option. It is further
submitted that against the said judgment, LPA-244-2014 was filed, which
was dismissed, vide judgment dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-7) and even
SLP i.e. SLP(C) No.26277 of 2015 has also been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 04.09.2015. It is argued that this
Court in the case of "Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana" in CWP-4382-
2002, on 21.03.2002, had directed that the same benefits be given to all
other identically situated persons. It is further argued that a petition
bearing CWP-16446-2010, filed by the petitioners, who were similarly
placed as the present petitioners, was allowed, vide judgment dated
20.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) and has prayed that with respect to the
grievances raised in the present writ petition, the petitioners had given a
legal notice dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-9) and at this stage, the
petitioners would be satisfied, in case, competent authority of respondent
No.1-State considers the same, in accordance with law, within a specified
time frame and also takes into consideration the judgments of this Court
in CWP-16446-2010 titled as "Jaswinder Singh Bedi and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others", decided on 20.05.2013 (Annexure P-6)
and in LPA-244-2014 titled as "State of Punjab and others Vs.
Jaswinder Sigh Bedi and others", decided on 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049805
CWP-19774-2020 -4- 2024:PHHC:049805
7) and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioners are found to be
meritorious, then, grant the appropriate relief to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has
submitted that competent authority of respondent No.1-State would
consider the said legal notice dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-9), filed by
the petitioners, in accordance with law and the same would be done
within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order
and in case, the pleas of the petitioners are found to be meritorious, the
necessary relief would be given to them immediately thereafter.
4. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
present petition is disposed of, with a direction to competent authority of
respondent No.1-State to consider the legal notice dated 27.01.2020
(Annexure P-9) filed by the petitioners within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and while
considering the said legal notice, the competent authority of respondent
No.1-State would also take into consideration the judgments of this Court
in CWP-16446-2010 titled as "Jaswinder Singh Bedi and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others", decided on 20.05.2013 (Annexure P-6)
and in LPA-244-2014 titled as "State of Punjab and others Vs.
Jaswinder Sigh Bedi and others", decided on 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-
7). In case, competent authority of respondent No.1-State is of the view
that the pleas raised by the petitioners are meritorious, then, the
appropriate relief be granted to the petitioners, as expeditiously as
possible and in case, competent authority of respondent No.1-State is of
the view that the pleas raised by the petitioners are meritless, then, a
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049805
CWP-19774-2020 -5- 2024:PHHC:049805
speaking order rejecting the claim be passed within the aforesaid period
of two months.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits
of the case and competent authority of respondent No.1-State would
consider and decide the matter independently, in accordance with law.
( VIKAS BAHL )
April 15, 2024 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
