Jagjit Singh vs Punjab State

M.L. Singhal, J.—Jagjit Singh is Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Patti Depot since 1973. At the time when he joined service, he was in the pay scale of 110-4-130/5-200. In the year 1978,1980, the pay scale was revised. Thereafter, also the pay scale was revised. He has put in more than 16 years of service. Although he has put in more than 16 years of service, no increment was granted to him. No show cause notice or charge sheet was ever served upon him. No inquiry was ever held against him as laid down under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. He was never conveyed any order withholding the grant of increment/increments to him. He was never conveyed any order stopping him at the efficiency bar. In other words, he could presume that he had crossed all efficiency bars that came his way. He is being paid minimum of the scale of his pay. If any order has been passed withholding grant of any increment, he was condemned unheard. On these allegations, he filed suit for declaration against the State of Punjab to the effect that the act of the defendant withholding the accrued annual increments to him for his past service without any valid and legal order is illegal, null and void, wrong, wanton, cryptic, capricious, mala fide, malicious, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, equity, fair play, against the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules and the provisions of the Constitution of India and is inoperative and is not binding on him with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to fix the pay and seniority of the plaintiff according to rule and to pay him the arrears together with interest and other benefits attached to the post.

Defendant-State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that incremens were stopped after due procedure was followed. Stoppage of increments is in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Orders are legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for ? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD

Relief.

Vide order dated 14.11.91, Subordinate Judge First Class, Patti decreed the plaintiff''s suit for declaration to the effect that the act of the defendant State of Punjab withholding accrued annual increments to him for his past service without any legal and valid order is illegal, null and void and not binding upon him, with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing the State of Punjab to fix his pay and seniority according to rules and pay him the arrears of pay and other benefits attached to the post in view of his finding that the State of Punjab could withhold increment after following due procedure and in this case, State of Punjab never held any inquiry nor passed any order stopping the grant of annual grade increments to him nor had passed any order stopping him at efficiency bar. It was found that he was entitled to the grant of an- partly allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed nual increments in routine unless the same was withheld by a specific order. It was found that in this case, there was no such order ever passed stopping the grant of increments to him.

State of Punjab went in appeal which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 4.4.94. Aggrieved by this order dated 4.4.94 of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, Jagjit Singh has knocked the door of this Court through this Regular Second Appeal.

Appellant was employed as conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Patti depot in October 1973. Ever since, he was not given any increments. He filed this suit in December, 1989 asking for a mandate to the State of Punjab to allow annual increments to him as and when they accrued when there is no order ever stopping the grant of annual increments to him. Rule 4.7 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. I, Para 1, which is quite pertinently attracted to this case reads as follows :-

"An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course, unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a government employee by a competent authority if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments."

It is thus clear that annual increment has to be drawn as a matter of course. The competent authority has got power to withhold the increment only if the conduct of an employee has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. The competent authority has to specify the period for which increment is withheld. A competent authority is to clarify as to whether the postponement of the increment shall have the effect of postponing the future increments. An order has to be passed by the competent authority for withholding an increment. In this case, no order was brought on the record by the State of Punjab said to have been ever passed by the competent authority withholding the grant of increment(s). When there is no evidence that any increment(s) was ever withheld so far as he is concerned, it was the duty of the competent authority to have drawn increment in favour of the appellant as and when it accrued. Failure to do so was infringement of Rule 4.7 (ibid) by the competent authority. Plaintiff filed this suit in December, 1989. Plaintiff cannot ask for the arrears of salary for a period of preceding 38 months of the institution of the suit. State of Punjab is directed to fix his salary after adding to it annual increments as and when it accrued after October, 1973. While fixing his salary, the State of Punjab will fix his salary as it would be in December 1989. After having fixed his salary like this, the State of Punjab will pay him the arrears of salary, D,A. etc. for a period of 38 months preceding the date of institution of the suit together with the interest @ 12% per annum. Appeal partly. No order as to costs.