Differential Treatment Cannot Be Meted Out To Similarly Situated Employees: SC Grants Proficiency Step-Up Scheme Benefits To Work-Charged Employees
The Supreme Court has granted Proficiency Step-Up Scheme benefits to work-charged employees observing that differential treatment cannot be meted out to similarly situated employees.
The Court reversed the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Appellant had challenged the denial of benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988 (Scheme) and argued for the inclusion of his work-charged service as qualifying service.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “In view of discussion made above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, 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.”
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia represented the Appellants, while AOR Karan Sharma appeared for the Respondents.
The appeal arose from the Division Bench of the High Court's judgment, which upheld the Single Bench’s judgment. The Single Bench had rejected the civil Writ Petitions filed by the Appellant seeking benefits under the Scheme and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998. The main question was whether service rendered in the work-charged establishment prior to regularisation could be included for determining eligibility under the schemes.
The Appellant argued that the Government of Punjab had already extended the same benefits to other employees who were similarly situated. He referred to the Policy Circular which clearly stated that work-charged service would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits.
The circular also acknowledged that judgments had been rendered in favour of various employees, granting benefits for work-charged service prior to regularisation under the Scheme. The Appellant argued that denying such benefits would amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
“On examining the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, we find that the precise connotations of the Government Circular dated 1st December, 1988, which had introduced the Proficiency Step-up Scheme were not considered in an apropos manner. The fundamental distinction in the present case is 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, and the past services of such employees would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Resultantly, we hereby direct that the appellants shall 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 vide Government Circular dated 1st December, 1988. The monetary benefits flowing from the above direction shall be paid to the appellants within a period of six months from today.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed 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