Supreme Court allows counting of work-charged service for Proficiency Step-Up Scheme: Gurmeet Singh vs. State of Punjab (2024)

Date of the Judgment: November 18, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 872
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can prior service in a work-charged establishment be counted towards benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, ruling in favor of employees who were denied these benefits. This judgment clarifies that if the government has extended the same benefits to similarly placed employees, denial to others is discriminatory. The bench consisted of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Mehta.

Case Background

The appellants, Gurmeet Singh and others, were initially employed in a work-charged establishment. Later, they were regularized in service. The core issue revolved around whether their prior service in the work-charged establishment should be counted towards benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998. The appellants sought these benefits, arguing that other similarly situated employees had already received them.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed Civil Writ Petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998. The learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected these petitions. The appellants then filed intra-court appeals, which were also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court treated both the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, as being at par. However, the learned Single Judge had taken note of an earlier judgment of the High Court which had approved the claims of work-charged employees in respect of the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988. The State of Punjab had challenged an order of the High Court in SLP(C) No. 7798 of 2004, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the interpretation of the Government Circular dated 1st December, 1988, which introduced the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, and the Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996, which stated that the past services of work-charged employees would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits.

The court also considered the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), 1998. However, the court noted that the High Court had incorrectly treated both the schemes as being at par.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Government of Punjab had extended the benefits of the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme to other employees similarly situated.
• They contended that denying the same benefits to them amounted to hostile and subjective discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The appellants referred to the Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996, which provided that past services rendered by employees on a work-charged/daily basis would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits.
• The appellants also relied on the Circular dated 12th April, 2005, issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab, which acknowledged that similar employees were entitled to the grant of proficiency step-up(s) after counting their work charge service.

State of Punjab’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, were extended to similarly situated employees only in cases where such employees were granted relief by court orders.
• The State did not dispute the Circular dated 12th April, 2005, which provided for the grant of Proficiency Step-up(s) to employees who were left out after various court judgments, even without specific court orders for those employees.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the service rendered by the appellants as work-charged employees prior to regularization should be counted towards the grant of benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, given that other similarly situated employees had already been granted the same benefit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Government Circular dated 1st December, 1988: Introduced the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme.
• Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996: Mandated that past services of work-charged employees would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits.
• Circular dated 12th April, 2005: Issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab, regarding the grant of Proficiency Step-up(s) to employees who were left out after various court judgments.

Judgment

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Jagjiwan Ram & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 661] The High Court relied on this case to deny relief to the appellants. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case from the present one.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of equality and non-discrimination. The Court emphasized that when a government extends a benefit to one group of employees, it cannot deny the same benefit to another similarly situated group without a valid reason. The Court also noted that the government’s own circulars and policies supported the appellants’ claim. The court was also influenced by the fact that the High Court had incorrectly treated both the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, as being at par.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The Policy Circular dated 13th March, 1996, clearly stated that the past services of work-charged employees would be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits.
• The Circular dated 12th April, 2005, issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Punjab, acknowledged that similar employees were entitled to the grant of proficiency step-up(s) after counting their work charge service.
• The High Court had incorrectly treated both the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, as being at par.
• The court noted that the State had extended the benefits to other similarly situated employees without court orders, as evident from the Circular dated 12th April, 2005.
• The court emphasized that differential treatment could not have been meted out to the appellants who formed part of the same establishment and were similarly situated to the employees who were granted the benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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 High Court seems to have overlapped the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), 1998 and the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988 for denying relief to the appellants which is not justifiable by any stretch of imagination.”

“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.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Work-charged service can be counted towards benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, if the government policy allows it and other similarly situated employees have received the same benefit.
• Differential treatment to similarly situated employees is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• Government circulars and policies must be interpreted in a manner that promotes equality and fairness.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed 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 the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that work-charged service can be counted towards benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, if the government policy allows it and other similarly situated employees have received the same benefit. This judgment reinforces the principle of equality and non-discrimination in matters of employment benefits. It also clarifies that the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, and the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, are distinct and should not be treated as being at par. This represents a change in the position of law as the High Court had incorrectly treated both the schemes as being at par.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gurmeet Singh vs. State of Punjab (2024) provides significant relief to employees who were denied benefits under the Proficiency Step-Up Scheme, 1988, despite having served in work-charged establishments. The Court emphasized the importance of equality and non-discrimination, ensuring that similarly situated employees are treated equally. The judgment underscores that the government must adhere to its own policies and circulars and cannot deny benefits to one group of employees when it has extended the same benefits to another similarly situated group.