Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Gurmeet Singh and others against the State of Punjab and others, setting aside the judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants were work-charge employees in the Irrigation Department of Punjab who were regularised under a Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996, which stated that their past work-charge service would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits. They sought benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, by counting their work-charge service. The High Court had denied relief, relying on a previous judgment that distinguished between the Proficiency Step-up Scheme and the Assured Career Progression Scheme. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had not properly considered the Government Circulars and that other similarly situated employees had already been granted the same benefits, leading to a violation of Article 14. The Court noted that the Industrial Tribunal had already ruled in favour of counting work-charge service for Proficiency Step-up benefits, and the State had implemented that decision. Therefore, the Court directed that the appellants' work-charge service be counted for Proficiency Step-up(s) under the 1988 Scheme, with monetary benefits to be paid within six months.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Discrimination - Differential Treatment - The appellants, similarly situated to other employees who were granted benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, were denied the same benefits, which amounted to hostile discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 8-13)
B) Service Law - Proficiency Step-up Scheme - Counting of Work-Charge Service - The Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996 provided that past services rendered on work-charge/daily basis would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits, including Proficiency Step-up(s). The High Court erred in overlapping the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), 1998 and the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988. (Paras 9-11)
C) Industrial Law - Reference to Industrial Tribunal - The Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, held that work-charge service before regularisation is liable to be counted for grant of Proficiency Step-up(s), which was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. The State implemented the decision. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the service rendered by the appellants as work charge employees prior to regularisation is to be accounted towards the grant of benefits under Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, in view of the fact that other similarly situated employees have already been granted the same benefit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversed and set aside the impugned judgments, and directed that the appellants shall be entitled to have their services in the work-charged establishment counted as qualifying service for Proficiency Step-up(s) in accordance with the Proficiency Step-up Scheme issued vide Government Circular dated 1st December, 1988. Monetary benefits to be paid within six months. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Proficiency Step-up Scheme 1988
- Work-charge service counting
- Discrimination
- Regularisation policy
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (11) 180
Civil Appeal No(s). 17529-17530 of 2017
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta
P.S. Patwalia (for appellants), Shadan Farasat (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing intra-court appeals and upholding the Single Judge's rejection of writ petitions for benefits under Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 and Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought counting of their entire service period including work-charge service for grant of benefits under Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 and Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998.
Filing Reason
Appellants were denied benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, despite a Policy Circular stating that past work-charge service would be treated as qualifying service for all consequential benefits, and other similarly situated employees had been granted such benefits.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petitions, and the Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeals. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed SLP(C) No. 7798 of 2004 and SLP(C) No. 12754 of 2006, affirming orders in favour of other employees.
Issues
Whether the service rendered by the appellants as work charge employees prior to regularisation is to be accounted towards the grant of benefits under Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, in view of the fact that other similarly situated employees have already been granted the same benefit.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Government of Punjab extended the same benefits to other similarly situated employees, and the differential treatment violated Article 14. They relied on Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996 and Circular dated 12th April, 2005.
Respondent State argued that benefits were extended only in compliance with court orders, but could not dispute that the Circular dated 12th April, 2005 provided for grant of Proficiency Step-up(s) to employees without court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The differential treatment meted out to the appellants, who were similarly situated to other employees granted benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, amounts to hostile discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996 clearly mandated that past work-charge service be treated as qualifying service for all consequential benefits, including Proficiency Step-up(s).
Judgment Excerpts
The primary issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the service rendered by the appellants herein as work charge employees prior to regularisation is to be accounted towards the grant of benefits under Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, in view of the fact that other similarly situated employees have already been granted the same benefit.
In view of discussion made above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we feel that the differential treatment could not have been meted out to the appellants herein who formed a part of the same establishment and were similarly situated to the employees who were granted the benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Civil Writ Petitions (C.W.P. No. 17985 of 2008 and C.W.P. No. 6623 of 2004) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 11th August, 2011. The appellants then filed intra-court appeals (Letters Patent Appeal No. 2309 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 2306 of 2011), which were dismissed by the Division Bench on 17th August, 2012. The appellants thereafter filed the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14
