In a sharp rebuke to arbitrary service practices, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a ₹10,000 fine on the District and Sessions Judge of Patiala for denying the second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit to Munish Gautam, a clerk in the Patiala Sessions Division. The court found the denial of ACP benefits to the petitioner a result of a discriminatory “pick-and-choose” approach.
The case, Munish Gautam v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 3903 of 2021), was heard by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who quashed the impugned order issued by the District Judge on January 9, 2020, which had rejected Gautam’s claim for the second ACP. The court held that the denial of benefits while extending the same to similarly situated employees was an act of discrimination.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Munish Gautam, was appointed as a clerk in the Sessions Division, Mansa, in October 2009. He was later transferred to the Patiala Sessions Division in November 2014. The Punjab government, through its notification in 2006, introduced an ACP scheme that entitled employees to benefits after completing 4, 9, and 14 years of service without promotion. Gautam had received the first ACP benefit in 2013 but was denied the second ACP after nine years of service due to his transfer.
The denial was based on a technicality that his transfer from one sessions division to another forfeited his prior service for the purpose of the ACP. However, Gautam argued that his past service was recognized for salary and pensionary benefits, so it should also be considered for the ACP scheme.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal issue in the case revolved around whether the past service of an employee who is transferred from one sessions division to another can be forfeited for ACP benefits while being considered for other benefits such as salary and pension. Gautam’s counsel, Mr. Puneet Sharma, contended that similar benefits were granted to other transferred employees and cited information obtained under the Right to Information Act as proof. The petitioner also relied on previous judgments by the Supreme Court, including State of Haryana v. Deepak Sood, where it was held that past service could not be disregarded for career progression benefits.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, including the State of Punjab and the District Judge of Patiala, argued that Rule 4.8(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, introduced in 2015, barred Gautam from claiming his past service for the purpose of the second ACP.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Sindhu, in his judgment, emphasized that Rule 4.8(b) was introduced after the petitioner’s transfer to Patiala in 2014 and, therefore, could not have retrospective effect. The court also highlighted the fact that other similarly placed employees had received the ACP benefit, indicating discriminatory treatment against Gautam.
The court remarked, “There is an old saying ‘You show me the man and I will show you the rule,’ which means that rule(s) change(s) depending on how influential or powerful the person is likely to be affected.” Justice Sindhu pointed out the arbitrary application of rules and concluded that the petitioner’s claim was lawful. He further noted that there was no justification for denying Gautam the benefit while it had been extended to others.
In light of these findings, the court imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the District and Sessions Judge of Patiala and ordered that the amount be paid to the petitioner within three months. The impugned order of January 9, 2020, was also set aside.
