Rajinder Kumar Pathak vs State of Punjab and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Petitioner claims a writ of mandamus to grant proficiency step-up after 8,16 and 24 years of service. Petitioner was appointed as lascar in 1st Punjab Battalion National Cadet Corps on 17.2.1959. He was promoted as Clerk on 5.4.1961 and then promoted as an accountant on 9.8.1966. The unit of the petitioner was disbanded and the petitioner was reverted as clerk w.e.f. 1.5.1979. The petitioner was again promoted as accountant on 19.10.1982. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has since been promoted as superintendent on 30.8.1996.

Petitioner claims proficiency step-up on account of lack of promotion as accountant from 9.8.1966 till his promotion as superintendent on 30.8.1996.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 it has been pointed out that there was allegation of financial irregularities, for which he was charge-sheeted on 23.12.1991 and the punishment of stoppage of annual increment was imposed on 28.4.1994.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in 1998(3) PLR 123, Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab to contend that the relief claimed by the petitioner relates to the fixation of salary, therefore, the delay cannot be made a ground to decline the petition.

The present writ petition was filed in the year 2006, claiming benefit of proficiency step-up for a period prior to 1996. I find that the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches. The incorrect fixation of salary as in the case of Saroj Kumari (Supra) stand on a different footing and non granting of proficiency step-up. The right to claim set up in pay scale arose in terms of instructions prior to his promotion on substantive rank in the year 1996. Even thereafter, the petitioner has remained silent for a period of ten years. The right to claim proficiency set up did not survive after promotion in the year 1996.

I do not find any ground to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of proficiency step-up in the present petition. The inaction of the petitioner for more than 10 years even after promotion as superintendent does not entitle the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Keeping in view the said facts, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is hereby dismissed.