Service extension to tainted can be considered on acquittal: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 28

In a significant judgment that will change the way extension in service is denied to the tainted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that their case for continuation was required to be reconsidered in the event of their exoneration in departmental appeals.

The ruling by a Division Bench is significant as the Punjab Finance Department’s instructions issued in April prohibit extension in service to employees facing departmental action for major penalty.

The judgment by Justice Surya Kant and Justice PB Bajanthri came on a bunch of petitions by Lal Chand and other petitioners. “If the very basis of denying extension in service disappears, the petitioner’s claim for such benefit would require reconsideration at the hands of the competent authority,” the Bench asserted.

The petitioners had challenged instructions dated April 30 for employees of boards and corporations, stipulating that officials awarded major penalty, having committed grave misconduct during extension period, facing departmental or criminal proceedings were not entitled to seek extension in service in terms of the previous policy.

The instructions, he contended, were liable to be struck down being arbitrary and having been introduced retrospectively. Working with Markfed, the petitioner added he was allowed to continue in terms of the previous instructions. But Markfed relieved him on the premise that he was not entitled to seek extension in service in view of major penalty inflicted on him after the adoption of new instructions.

The Bench asserted the instructions had not been applied retrospectively as the benefits drawn by employees on extension in service had not been withdrawn. The instructions had been applied with immediate effect and were indeed prospective in nature. The Bench asserted: “Since extension in service beyond the age of retirement is a sort of incentive, reward or encouragement, it cannot be said that the instructions are arbitrary in nature merely because an official with chequered service record is denied such benefits.

“Similarly, the employees having clean slate record on the one hand and those who are subjected to major disciplinary action constitute to two separate and distinct classes, therefore, the vice of discrimination cannot be read into the instructions.”