Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 639 (HP)

Vasu Dev Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-04

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Third proficiency step-up was granted to the petitioner on 01.10.2004. It was withdrawn from him on 15.06.2015. Petitioner’s case is that withdrawal of third proficiency step-up from him was an illegal action of the respondents and recovery on that basis effected from him, for an amount of Rs.1,94,591/- was also illegal. The amount is required to be refunded to him. 2. Petitioner’s case is as under:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 19.07.1978 in the Public Works Department. In 1984 H.P. Public Works Department and Irrigation & Public Health Department were bifurcated. Petitioner was inducted in Public Works Department. (ii) Respondent-State introduced Assured Career Progression Scheme on 15.12.1994. As per this Scheme, proficiency step-ups were to be granted to the employees in accordance with the Scheme on completion of 8-16-24 years of service. (iii) Petitioner was granted first proficiency step-up on completion of eight years of service on 01.07.1986; Second proficiency step-up was released to him on 01.07.1996 and third proficiency step up was granted to the petitioner on 01.10.2004. Petitioner continued to enjoy benefits flowing from the grant of third proficiency step-up. (iv) Under office order dated 15.06.2015, respondents re-fixed the pay of the petitioner and third proficiency step-up granted to him on 01.10.2004 was withdrawn. Consequently, recovery of Rs.1,94,591/- was also effected from him after his retirement on 31.08.2015. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 15.06.2015 withdrawing third proficiency step up and the recovery effected from him on that basis. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon State of H.P. and others vs. Gian Chand and others , LPA No. 259 of 2012 decided alongwith connected matter on 22.09.2023. in support of the claim of the petitioner for third proficiency step-up and for refund of the amount recovered from him. In the aforesaid case, benefit granted to the petitioners (therein) who were serving as Junior Engineers on completion of 24 years of service had been withdrawn. Respondent-State had defended withdrawal of the benefits from the petitioners on the ground that:- the Scheme did not envisage any proficiency step-up on completion of 24-32 years of service; The status of Junior Engineers had been changed to Additional Assistant Engineer. Respondent-State had defended withdrawal of the benefits from the petitioners on the ground that:- the Scheme did not envisage any proficiency step-up on completion of 24-32 years of service; The status of Junior Engineers had been changed to Additional Assistant Engineer. Taking this change of designation as promotion, it was contended for the State that proficiency step-up on completion of 24-32 years of service could not have been released to the petitioners (therein). This contention of the respondents was rejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The petitioners were held entitled for grant of proficiency step-up on completion of 24 years of service. Relevant portion from the decision is as under:- “11. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, respondents were appointed as Junior Engineers with the appellants Department. There is no dispute that the respondents were granted benefit under the Scheme (Annexure A-1) on completion of 8 and 16 years of service. Thereafter, the new Scheme (Annexure A-3 dated 04.08.2001) came in operation. As per Clause-(iii) of the said Scheme, the Junior Engineers were entitled to grant higher pay scale of Rs.7220- 11320 with Class-II status and designation of Additional Assistant Engineer after service of 16 years. Clause-(iv) of the Scheme further provides with the grant of Class-II (Gazetted) Status and Designation of Additional Assistant Engineer, there will be no addition to the ‘cadre strength’ of Junior Engineer and the officials placed in the higher scale and granted status of Additional Assistant Engineer will continue to discharge the same duties and exercise the same powers. 12. Thus, from the perusal of Clause (iii) of the Scheme (Annexure A-3), it is evident that merely the designation of the ‘Junior Engineers’ was changed as ‘Additional Assistant Engineer’ and they were to perform the same duties as they had been performing as Junior Engineers. Clause-(iii) of the Scheme (Annexure A-3) further shows that the status and designation of Additional Assistant Engineers had been granted without benefit of any increment, i.e. pay was to be fixed on the same status in the higher scale under the said instructions. Further, as per Clause-(iii) of the Scheme (Annexure A-3), the existing system followed under the instructions, Annexure A-1, dated 15.12.1998, would continue and the change was only to the extent mentioned in the said Scheme ( Annexure A-3, dated 04.08.2001). 13. Further, as per Clause-(iii) of the Scheme (Annexure A-3), the existing system followed under the instructions, Annexure A-1, dated 15.12.1998, would continue and the change was only to the extent mentioned in the said Scheme ( Annexure A-3, dated 04.08.2001). 13. After careful reading of both the Schemes Annexures A-1 & A-2, attached to the writ petition, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly held that the respondents were entitled for grant of proficiency step-up on completion of 24 years of service. Hence, no interference is called for.” 4. Petitioner’s claim in the present petition is based upon the aforesaid decision. Petitioner’s representation made to the respondents, seeking applicability of the aforesaid decision did not yield desired result. The respondents in their reply have not denied that petitioner’s case is covered by the aforesaid judgment. Their only stand is that Special Leave to Appeal against the aforesaid decision is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned Assistant Advocate General stated that the judgment in Gian Chand’s case has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. The above being the admitted position, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of law laid down in Gian Chand’s case, within four weeks. Appropriate necessary order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the aforesaid decision, be passed within the aforesaid period. In case petitioner is held entitled to the third proficiency step-up in consonance with the decision, then the amount which has been recovered from him, be released in his favour within two weeks thereafter. The above shall, however, be subject to the decision of the SLP stated to be pending against Gian Chand’s case. 6. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.