Satpal Jindal and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Both the petitioners, who were working as Assistant Food & Supply Officers with the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, State of Punjab have filed the instant writ petition impugning the action of the respondent-authorities in denying to them the benefit of extension of service of one year after having attained the age of superannuation i.e. from 30.11.2012. Rule 3.26 clauses (a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. I, Part I were amended by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 8.10.2012. Such notification reads in the following terms:-

No. 22/2/2012/4FP2/469 - In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I namely:-

RULES

(1) These rules may be called the Punjab Civil Services (First Amendment) Rules, Volume-1, Part-1, 2012. (2) They shall come into force at once.

In the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I, in rule 3.26, for clauses (a) and (b), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:

3.26 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the date of retirement of a Government employee other than a Group D Government employee shall be the date on which he attains the age of 58 years and the date of retirement of a Group D Government employees shall be the date on which he attains the age of 60 years:

Provided that if the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest so to do, the service of a Government employee or a Class of Government employees, may be extended beyond the date of retirement for a period not exceeding two years, after getting an option from the concerned Government employee or the Government employees, as the case may be.

Provided further that a Government employee must not be retained in service after the period of service extended under this clause, except in exceptional circumstances with the previous sanction of the competent authority in public interest and for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these rules or any other rules for the time being in force, during the extended period of service under clause (a) of this rule, a Government employee shall be entitled to pay equal to the pay last drawn by him on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years or 60 years, as the case may be. However, if a promotional post is available, he shall be eligible for consideration for promotion against that post and on promotion his pay shall be fixed under the relevant rules.

SATISH CHANDRA

Principal Secretary to Govt. Punjab Department of Finance.

In the light of such amendment of Rule 3.26, the State of Punjab, Finance Department issued a circular dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P-3) granting the approval as regards the extension of one year in the service of the Punjab Government Groups A, B, C and D employees. A perusal of such notification would reveal that the benefit of such extension of one year in the service was to be given to employees only upon such employees submitting their options within a period of three months prior to the date of completion of 58/60 years as per clause (a) of Rule 3.26. It was, however, stipulated that, if, such period of submitting option is less than three months relating to the maximum limit of retirement of such employee, the option could be submitted at any time from the date of issuance of the circular till the day of the maximum limit of retirement. It was further categorically submitted that the option once given would be treated as final.

Both the petitioners, who were holding the post of Assistant Food & Supply Officers and their date of superannuation being 30.11.2012 i.e. upon attaining the age of 58 years, submitted their respective options on 19.10.2012 in the light of the circular dated 8.10.2012. The options of both the employees, opting for the benefit of one year extension in service Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively were received in the office of the District Food & Supplies Controller, Bathinda, respondent No. 3 on 19.10.2012 itself. It has been pleaded that on 23.10.2012 respondent No. 3 duly forwarded the options of both the petitioners to the Commissioner, Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh in terms of referring to the circular dated 8.10.2012.

The present writ petition has been necessitated against the backdrop that the benefit of extension of service of one year has not been granted to the petitioners and accordingly, both of them stand superannuated on 30.11.2012.

Mr. Puneet Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue that the action of the State Government in denying to the petitioners the benefit of extension of one year service in the light of the circular dated 8.10.2012 is clearly arbitrary and illegal. Counsel would contend that in terms of the circular dated 8.10.2012 there would be an automatic extension in service subject to the employee submitting an option within the stipulated time period. It has further been urged that both the petitioners are Group B Punjab Government employees and the decision contained in circular dated 8.10.2012 is applicable across the board to all employees in service of the Government of Punjab. Counsel would refer to the documents appended along with the petition as Annexure P-1 (colly) to assert that the respondent-department had itself certified both the petitioners to be possessing an unblemished service record and in the light of the fact that no complaint or inquiry was pending against them, there could be no justifiable reason in denying benefit of extension of one year service in the light of the circular dated 8.10.2012. Even the plea of discrimination has been raised. In this regard counsel has even referred to an affidavit dated 9.12.2012 of petitioner No. 1 that had been admitted on record and to the specific averments contained therein citing the instance of as many as 14 employees of various departments of the State of Punjab who have been granted the benefit of extension of one year service in terms of circular dated 8.10.2012. Counsel would argue that the action is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State in terms of referring to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 would contend that the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, State of Punjab had constituted a Committee of three senior officers of the department on 27.11.2012 to examine the cases, wherein the retiring employees including the petitioners had submitted their options for extension in their service for a period of one year. Reference has been made to the report dated 29.11.2012 submitted by such Committee at Annexure R-2, wherein it has been opined that a number of vacancies of the Inspectorate staff and higher posts in the department have already been filled up by way of promotion. Still further, the requisition of 25 posts of Food & Supply Officers has been sent to the Punjab Public Service Commission for direct recruitment and for which the process already stands initiated. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that, if, extension beyond 58 years of age is granted to the employees such as the petitioners, the promotional opportunities for the existing staff would be reduced. Learned State counsel would contend that respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs has accorded approval to the report of the Committee and as such, the benefit as regards the extension in service for a period of one year as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted. In so far as the grant of extension in service to the employees of the State of Punjab relating to other departments is concerned, such fact has not been denied but it has been contended that such action does not stand good with the respondent-department.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the pleadings on record.

In the light of the notification dated 8.10.2012, whereby Rule 3.26 clauses (a) and (b) were amended, the date of retirement of a Government employee other than a Group D Government employee is the date on which he attains the 58 years of age. If, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient in public interest to do so, the service of Government employee or a class of Government employees may be extended beyond the date of retirement for the period not exceeding two years after getting an option from the concerned Government employee or the Government employees as the case may be. Still further, in terms of the amended rule Government employee is not be retained in service after the period of such extended service except in exceptional circumstances with the previous sanction of the competent authority and for reasons to be recorded in writing. It was an exercise of the power conferred in terms of the amended Rule 3.26 that the circular dated 8.10.2012 was issued by the Finance Department and circulated to all the Heads of Departments across the State of Punjab, whereby it was conveyed that the Governor of Punjab has been pleased to accord approval regarding extension of one year service of Groups A, B, C and D employees. Such circular dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P-3) further mandates that such extension shall be given to the employees only upon the options being exercised within the stipulated time frame and such option once given was treated as final and irrevocable.

It is the admitted position of fact that both the petitioners had submitted their options within the stipulated time frame and that they possessed a good service record.

The short question that would require examination in the present writ petition is as to whether it was open for the respondent-department to have deviated from the general order as contained in the circular dated 8.10.2012 issued by the Finance Department, State of Punjab?

Chapter 1 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules governs the extent of application of such rules and in terms of Rule 1.2 sub-clause (1) it is clarified that the rule shall apply to all Government employees, who are under the administrative control of the Punjab Government and whose pay is debitable to the consolidated fund of State of Punjab including Members of State Services Class-I, Class-II as also Class-III apart from others. In terms of Rule 1.8 the power of interpreting, changing and relaxing the rules is with the Department of Finance. The respondent-department is justifying its action in denying to the petitioners the benefit of extension of service for a period of one year as contained in the circular dated 8.10.2012 in the light of a report dated 29.11.2012 submitted by a Committee of three senior officers of the department which has been approved by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs. It has been stated on behalf of the State that such approval has been accorded in exercise of the powers under clause 2 of Annexure III of the Rules of Business of the Government of Punjab 1992 (Annexure R-3) along with the written statement. A perusal of the relevant Annexure III would make it apparent that the same relates to cases to be disposed of by the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department and Administrative Matters and clause 2 reads in the following terms:-

Cases regarding continuance beyond the age of 50 and 55 years of all Group B Officers.

Under the Rules of Business of the Government of Punjab, 1992 the matter regarding extension of service as also cases relating to reemployment would not fall under the scope and ambit of Annexure III. Such matters would be confined only as regards continuance in service of Group B officers beyond the 50 and 55 years. Clearly, such power could not have been usurped by respondent No. 1 in so far as a decision to be taken regarding grant of benefit of extension of period of one year service beyond the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. In that regard the circular dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Department of Finance would hold the field. The matter would further stand crystallized in making a reference to Annexure I appended along with Annexure R-3 with the written statement which, in turn, notices the cases to be submitted to the Chief Minister, Punjab under Rule 20(1) sub-clause (2) of the Rules of Business, 1992. Under clause 8(i) of Annexure I the cases relating to re-employment of the Gazetted Officer or extension in their term of employment are matters which are beyond the purview of the Principal Secretary. Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, State of Punjab.

As such, I find that the action of the respondent-department in denying the benefit of extension of service for a period of one year beyond the age of superannuation to the petitioners on the basis of a report of Officers'' Committee of the department which purportedly has been granted approval at the hands of respondent No. 1, to be wholly without jurisdiction.

A clear case of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is also made out. The circular dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P-3) has been issued by the Finance Department, State of Punjab in the light of the Amended Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. I, Part I. This order stands circulated to all the departments in the State of Punjab, Registrar. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Commissioners of Divisions, all the District & Sessions Judges and all the Deputy Commissioners of the Government of Punjab and is on the subject of the Governor of Punjab having granted an approval of extension of one year in the services of the Punjab Government Groups A, B, C and D employees. Such circular mandates the grant of extension to such employees who submit their options for grant of the benefit of extension. The circular dated 8.10.2012 would necessarily have to be construed as a general order. The fact that a large number of employees have been granted the benefit of extension of service for a period of one year in the light of the circular dated 8.10.2012 stands admitted. It would not be open for the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, State of Punjab to charter its own course in such matter. The action of the respondent-department is clearly discriminatory and smacks of arbitrariness.

For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to the benefit of extension of one year in service beyond their age of superannuation in terms of the circular dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P-3). The requisite and necessary orders, accordingly, be issued in favour of the petitioners forthwith. Petition allowed.