Naresh Kumar Kataria v. State Of Punjab

Manoj Kumar 2016.12.23 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.12.2016 Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria ....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Jaswant Singh, J Petitioner, who is working as Agriculture Development Officer, has prayed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 15.4.2015 (P.5) whereby the benefit of extraordinary leave for the period from 01.6.1997 to 03.8.1997 and from 01.12.1997 to 19.1.1998 has been declined towards counting for annual increments.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Rule 4.9 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume I Part I (for short "the Rules"), the period of extraordinary leave deserves to be counted for the purposes of annual increment especially when the respondent has already granted this benefit to the coemployee of the petitioner, namely, Ranjodh Singh, Agriculture Development Officer vide order dated 27.4.2010 (P.4).

#2# On the other hand, learned state counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that there is a considerable delay while approaching this Court for the relief claimed by the petitioner and moreover the provisions of Rule 4.9 of the Rules are not applicable to the matter in controversy, rather the same is falling within the purview of Rule 8.121 of the Rules under which the relief to the petitioner has rightly been declined while passing the impugned order (P.5).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of Rule 4.9 as well as Rule 8.121 of the Rules, which read as under:

"4.9. The following provisions prescribe the conditions on which service counts for increments in a time-scale:- (a) All duty in a post on a time-scale counts for increments in that time-scale:

provided that, for the purpose of arriving at the date of the next increment in that time scale the total of all such periods as do not count for increment in that time-scale shall be added to the normal date of increment. (b) (i) xxxxx xx xxxxx xxxx (ii) All leave except extraordinary leave taken otherwise than on medical certificate and the period of deputation out of India shall count for increment in the time-scale applicable to a post in which a Government employee was officiating at the time he proceeded on leave or deputation out of India and would have continued to officiate but for his proceeding on leave or deputation out of India:

Provided that the competent authority may in any case

#3# in which it is satisfied that the extraordinary leave was taken for any cause beyond the Government employee s‟ control or for prosecuting higher scientific and technical studies, direct that extraordinary leave shall be counted for increments under clause (i) or (ii)."

"8.121. (1) Extraordinary leave may be granted to any Government employee in special circumstances:- (a) when no other leave is admissible, or (b) when other leave is admissible, but Government employee concerned applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave.

(2) The authority empowered to grant leave may commute retrospectively:- (a) period of absence without leave into extraordinary leave.

(b) extraordinary leave granted into leave of a different kind if the latter type of leave was admissible at the time extraordinary leave was granted."

[ Emphasis supplied ] A perusal of proviso to Rule 4.9 (b)(ii) of the Rules makes abundantly clear that the Competent Authority is empowered to count the period of extraordinary leave towards increments(s) under clause (i) or (ii) of the Rule 4.9, in the event of (i) Government employee prosecuting his higher studies in the Scientific and Technical fields or (ii) when leave taken for a cause beyond the employee's control.

Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner while working as Agriculture Development Officer, Banga, District Nawashahr was granted the extraordinary leave for completion of his Ph.D in Agriculture from the Department of Agronomy H.P. Agriculture University, Palampur District Kangra (Himachal

#4# Pradesh) and there is no dispute to that effect. The justification recorded by the respondent while passing the impugned order is that in view of Rule 8.121 of the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for counting of extraordinary leave towards annual increments, which according to this Court, seems to be totally misplaced and liable to be rejected.

Rule 8.121 of the Rules reproduced hereinabove is in fact related to the grant of extraordinary leave and the same does not deal with the purposes of grant of annual increments, therefore, the respondent has misread this Rule for the proposition in question. The contention of the respondent that the relief is highly belated is liable to be rejected in view of the conclusion reached above that in terms of law, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed and also such a benefit has already been extended to the similarly situated employee, namely, Ranjodh Singh, ADO vide ((P.4). Thus, the denial of the legally admissible benefit of annual increment to the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court as the same would be totally unjust and erroneous. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 15.4.2015 (P.5) is set aside and the respondent is directed to count the period of 114 days of extraordinary leave granted to the petitioner towards annual increments with all consequential benefits without any interest.