Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on November 18, 2024, allowed an appeal filed by a group of employees from Punjab against a High Court order that seemingly conflated the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), 1998, and the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, to deny them relief. The apex court remarked that such an approach was unjustifiable by any stretch of the imagination.

In the case, the High Court had dismissed writ petitions filed by the appellants, who sought benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988, and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, taking into account their entire service period, including their tenure in the work-charged establishment.

Allowing the appeal filed by Gurmeet Singh and others, a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta said, the fundamental distinction in the present case was that the Policy Circular whereby, the services of the appellants were regularised, gave a clear mandate that the services of the work charge employees would be regularised.

The past services of such employees would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits. The High Court seems to have overlapped the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), 1998 and the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 for denying relief to the appellants, the bench said.

"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," the bench said.

The appeals arose from the judgment of August 17, 2012 rendered by the division bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, the intra-court appeals preferred by the appellants were dismissed and the judgment of August 11, 2011 passed by the single judge of the High Court was upheld.

The single judge had rejected the civil writ petitions preferred by the appellants for grant of benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 and Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, by accounting for their entire service period including that in the work charged establishment.   

The appellants' counsel contended that the Government of Punjab had on its own volition, extended the very same benefits of Proficiency Step-up to other employees situated at par with the appellants, and thus, the differential treatment meted out to the appellants tantamounted to hostile and subjective discrimination, which was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

In this regard, the counsel drew the attention of the court to the Policy Circular of March 13, 1996, issued by the Department of Irrigation and Power (Irrigation Personnel-III), Government of Punjab, whereby, it was decided that the Government Policy contained in the letter of May 7, 1993 would be relaxed and the services of the work-charged staff of Ranjit Sagar Dam would be regularised.

He submitted that clause (a) of the said Policy Circular clearly provided that the past services rendered by the employees on work charged/daily basis was supposed to be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits.

The state government contested the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellants and urged that the benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 to employees situated at par with the appellants were extended only in the cases where such employees were granted the said relief in compliance of the orders passed by the courts in judicial proceedings. 

Nonetheless, the government could not dispute the fact that the Circular of April 12, 2005 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab, clearly provided for the grant of Proficiency Step-up(s) to employees of different categories who were left out after the various judgments of the courts, without any court orders being in force qua such employees.

After hearing the counsel, the bench said, "We find that the precise connotations of the Government Circular dated December 1, 1988, which had introduced the Proficiency Step-up Scheme were not considered in an apropos manner."

As a result, the court directed that the appellants would 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 by Government Circular of December 1, 1988. 

The monetary benefits flowing from the direction would be paid to the appellants within a period of six months, the bench said.

The court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's impugned judgment.

Case Title: Gurmeet Singh And Ors Etc Vs State of Punjab & Ors