Service benefits can’t be denied for State’s failure to hold, notify test: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that employees cannot be deprived of financial upgradation or service benefits due to the employer’s omission in conducting or notifying mandatory departmental tests. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that the State’s failure to hold “Safety Code Tests” or duly inform employees could not be used to deny them benefits under the Assured Career Progression Rules. “It would be against the principle of equity and fairness to burden employees with the financial and career-impacting consequences of administrative or technical lapses, solely caused by the negligence of the employer,” the court asserted.

The ruling came on a petition seeking the quashing of the order dated March 26, 2013, whereby third financial upgradation was declined to the petitioner-employee. Justice Brar’s Bench was told that the petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Lineman in August 1973, was regularised in July 1976. He went on to become a Lineman in October 1993 before retiring on June 30, 2008. His grievance arose after his claim for the third financial upgradation was turned down in March 2013, despite having completed the qualifying years of service. His counsel argued that the denial was premised on the ground that he had not cleared the Safety Code Test, though he was never personally informed about its conduct. The benefit, he stressed, could not be withheld when the petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility conditions and the authorities had failed to notify him of the test.

Justice Brar asserted the requirement of clearing the test was introduced through a circular dated February 27, 2009 — much after the petitioner’s retirement in June 2008. It was also admitted that no personal intimation was ever issued to him regarding the conduct of the oral examination held in lieu of the Safety Code Test.

Justice Brar asserted that the Rules were conceived to ensure government employees did not suffer stagnation in their careers merely because of non-availability of promotional posts. The Bench added that financial upgradation was intended to boost the morale of employees who had put in the requisite years of service, even if they had not been granted promotion

The Bench rejected the respondent’s stand that the petitioner was ineligible for financial upgradation for want of passing the test after observing that the argument was untenable since he had already retired on June 30, 2008 — much before the Rules were made applicable to the employees on February 27, 2009.

“Clearly, the inability to meet the requirement did not arise from neglect, incompetence, or unwillingness of the petitioner, but can be entirely attributed to the omission on part of the respondent to hold the test at regular intervals and duly notify the prospective candidates before conducting the same. It is true that such requirements aim to ensure merit, skill, and eligibility. However, failure of the petitioner to appear for the same cannot be held against him when the fault lies with the State instrumentality,” Justice Brar asserted.

Allowing the petition, the Bench directed the respondents to release the consequential benefits of the third financial upgradation to the petitioner within three months. Any delay beyond the period would entail 7.5 per cent interest per annum, calculated from the date of the petitioner’s retirement.