Chander Bhan Sharma & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5655 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060574




                                                             2023:PHHC:060574
CWP-19403-2003 (O&M)                                   -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

(205)                                                CWP-19403-2003 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision:- 28.04.2023

Chander Bhan Sharma and others                                     ...Petitioners
                                 Versus
State of Haryana and others                                        ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL


Present:- Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.

       Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
             ****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition has been filed primarily seeking the following

reliefs:-

(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Govt.

instructions dated 15.03.2002 and 23.04.2003, Annexure P-4 and P-5,

respectively, vide which the benefit for counting the adhoc service rendered

by the petitioners was withdrawn for the purpose of grant of additional

increment on completion of 8/18 years service in view of the Govt.

instruction dated 07.08.1992 and also further quash the order of the

authorities for reducing the pay of the petitioners in view of the Govt.

instruction, Annexure P-5;

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition restraining the respondents

from withdrawing the benefit of additional increments on completion of 8/18

years service by counting adhoc service;

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060574

2023:PHHC:060574 CWP-19403-2003 (O&M) -2-

(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to

grant the additional increments granted under the scheme dated 07.08.1992

and further clarified vide letter dated 20.08.1996.

2. Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by the respondents

by filing a response.

3. Heard counsel for the parties.

4. The matter in controversy in the writ petition has been finally

settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Versus Ishar

Singh, (2002) 10 SCC 674. The observations of the Supreme Court deserve

to be noticed and are reproduced as under:-

"2. The respondents were initially appointed as Horticulture Inspectors on adhoc basis without following the procedure laid down in the recruitment rules. Subsequently their services were regularised and orders appointing them on regular/substantive basis were issued. The appointments of the respondents (adhoc and regular) were made prior to 1.9.1989. The question for consideration is whether the adhoc services rendered by them is to be included for the purpose of calculating 8 or 18 years service which is required for giving them the higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme for seniority etc. This question was considered by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another, 2000(4) SCT 664 (SC) ; (JT 2000(10) SC 561, in which a three Judge Bench of this Court held that the adhoc service rendered by the employees is not to be included for the purpose of calculating 8/18 years of service only regular service is to be counted for the purpose.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060574

2023:PHHC:060574 CWP-19403-2003 (O&M) -3-

3. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the decision in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association case (supra) is applicable to this case.

4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the judgment/order passed by the High Court under challenge is set aside.

5. However, we make it clear that if any of the respondents has drawn any amount on the basis of the higher scale of pay granted to him taking into account the adhoc service then the such amount already drawn by the employee shall not be recovered, though his cadre seniority and other consequential benefits will be governed by the decision rendered herein. No costs."

5. Impugned instructions and order have been issued in the light of

legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and do not call for any

interference. However, if any excess amount has been paid to the petitioners,

it shall not be recovered. In case any amount has been recovered pursuant to

the impugned order, the same be refunded within four months of the

communication of a copy of this order, failing which, respondents shall be

liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed period.

6. Petition is disposed of with the above directions.

                                           (SUVIR SEHGAL)
28.04.2023                                      JUDGE
Kamal
        Whether Speaking/Reasoned                     Yes/No
        Whether Reportable                            Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060574

3 of 3