High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors v. JAGMOHAN SINGH WALIA - RSA-1229-2005  RD-P&H 22 (25 May 2005)
State of Punjab and others v. Jagmohan Singh Walia Present:- Ms.Neelofar A.Parveen, A.A.G.Punjab, for the State-appellant.
for the respondent.
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
Whether or not the respondent is entitled to the grant of two proficiency step up increments after completion of 8 and 18 years of service with effect from 1.1.1986 and he has a right to revise his option exercised earlier?
is the only question that arises for consideration before this Court in this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1800 3200 when he had exercised the option with effect from 1.6.1987. The proficiency step-up increments were granted vide order No.13027/6NGE-I/93 dated 26.10.1993 in the revised pay-scale of Rs.2200-
3900. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-appellant that as per Government notification No.10/7/88/FPI/8299 DATED 9.9.1988 an option once exercised by the employees under Rule (6)(i) is final and they cannot revise the option, yet I do not agree with the contention raised by him. At the time when the plaintiff R.S.A.No.1229 of 2005
had exercised the option with effect from 1.6.1987 he was drawing the pay- scale of Rs.1800-3200. With the revision of the pay-scale to 2200-3900 retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1986 and the fact that the proficiency step-up increments were to be given in the revised pay scale, the priorities for exercising the option had changed. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be debarred from exercising the option in view of the changed priorities therefor. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Randhir Kaur and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(1) RSJ 178, that "once through a subsequent order passed by the Government itself or on the basis of a Court judgment, if the pay scale of a particular individual is revised, the earlier option which might have been given" by him "would lose its significance." It has further been held by their Lordships that "such a person would be entitled to give a fresh option by which he could get the maximum advantage." The law laid down by the said Division Bench is squarely applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 6.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, and I uphold the same.
Consequently, there is not merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
July 29, 2005. ( Ashutosh Mohunta )
R.S.A.No.1229 of 2005
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.