Differential treatment cannot be applied to employees in similar situations: The Supreme Court awards benefits of the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme to work-charged employees.
The Supreme Court has approved benefits from the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme for work-charged employees, stating that similar employees should not be treated differently. The Court overturned the decisions made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Appellant contested the denial of benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, and argued that his work-charged service should count as qualifying service. Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta noted, “Considering the discussion above and the unique facts of this case, we believe that the Appellants, who are part of the same establishment and in similar situations as those who received benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, should not have faced different treatment.”
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia represented the Appellants, while AOR Karan Sharma represented the Respondents. This appeal came from a Division Bench of the High Court, which supported the Single Bench’s ruling. The Single Bench had dismissed the civil Writ Petitions from the Appellant seeking benefits under the Scheme and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998. The key issue was whether the service in the work-charged establishment before regularization could be counted for eligibility under the schemes. The Appellant pointed out that the Government of Punjab had already granted similar benefits to other employees in the same situation and referenced a Policy Circular stating that work-charged service would be recognized as qualifying service for pension and other benefits.
The circular recognized that several employees had received judgments in their favor, allowing them benefits for their work-charged service before being regularized under the Scheme. The Appellant claimed that not granting these benefits would be discriminatory and against Article 14 of the Constitution. “Upon reviewing the judgments from the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, we observe that the specific meanings of the Government Circular dated December 1, 1988, which introduced the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, were not properly considered. The key difference in this case is that the Policy Circular, which regularized the appellants’ services, clearly stated that work-charged employees’ services would be regularized, and their past service would count as qualifying service for pension and other benefits,” the Court stated.
As a result, the Court declared, “Therefore, we direct that the appellants’ work-charged service will be counted as qualifying service for Proficiency Step-up(s) under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme from the Government Circular dated December 1, 1988. The financial benefits from this decision must be paid to the appellants within six months from today.” Thus, the Supreme Court approved the Appeal.
Cause Title: Gurmeet Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 872)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia; AOR Sunita Sharma and Tushar Bakshi
Respondents: AOR Karan Sharma
