Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs Secretary Haryana Vidyut Prasaran And ... on 5 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046613
RSA-3441-2016 2024:PHHC:046613 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(218) RSA-3441-2016
Date of Decision : April 05, 2024
Om Parkash .. Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondents.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
decree of the trial Court dated 18.04.2014 by which, the suit filed by the
appellant-plaintiff was partly allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant-
plaintiff has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment
and decree dated 04.03.2016. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that the
Courts below have not considered all the facts and evidence in the correct
perspective and the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside
by which suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has only partly allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that keeping
in view the policy of the respondent-State, an employee was entitled for
three ACPs on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service and keeping in
view the fact the appellant-plaintiff was working on the post of Assistant
Lineman with the respondents since 18.04.1973 and upto the year 2007,
when the appellant-plaintiff attained the age of superannuation, he had
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046613
completed 30 years of service hence, the benefit of 3rd ACP should have
been extended to the appellant-plaintiff from the year 2003, which benefit
has wrongly been denied to him by the Courts below and that too without
considering the said fact.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Nigam submits that the appellant-plaintiff has not completed 30 years of
service upto the date of his retirement in the year 2007 for the grant of
benefit of 3rd ACP for the reason that though the appellant-plaintiff was
initially appointed as ALM on 18.04.1973 on adh oc basis, his services were
only regularized on the said post on 02.04.1979 and any service rendered
prior to the said date, cannot be taken into account for the grant of benefit of
ACP and the judgment and decree of the Courts below are perfectly valid
and legal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a matter of fact that the appellant-plaintiff was appointed
on the post of Assistant Lineman in the year 1973 on adhoc basis. His
services were only regularized in the year 1979. The claim of the appellant-
plaintiff in the civil suit is for the grant of 3rd ACP on completion of 30
years of service. It is also a matter of fact that the appellant-plaintiff
attained the age of superannuation and retired in February 2007.
7. The only question that arises is whether, the adhoc service
rendered by the appellant-plaintiff from 1973 to 1979 can be taken into
account for the grant of benefit of 3rd ACP or the computation of service is
to start from the date the employee was appointed on regular basis.
8. The said question of law has already been settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the adhoc service cannot be taken into
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046613
account for the grant of ACP and only the regular service is to be taken into
account. While passing order in Civil Appeal No.13423 of 1996 titled as
State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association,
decided on 19.09.2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that only
the regular service of an employee is to be taken into account for computing
the grant of ACP and adhoc service is to be excluded. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
"Rule 11 provides for continuation on probation for a
period of 2 years and Rule 12 is the Rule for seniority. A
combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of the
Recruitment Rules puts the controversy beyond any doubt and
the only conclusion which could be drawn from the aforesaid
Rules is that the services rendered either on ad hoc basis or as
a stopgap arrangement, as in the case in hand from 1980 to
1982 cannot be held to be regular service for getting the
benefits of the revised scale of pay or of the selection grade
under the Government Memorandum dated 2nd June, 1989
and 16th May, 1990, and therefore, the majority judgment of
the High Court must be held to be contrary to the aforesaid
provisions of the Recruitment Rules, consequently cannot be
sustained. The initial letter of appointment dated 6.12.1979
pursuant: to which respondent Rakesh Kumar joined as an
Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis in 1980 was also placed
before us. The said appointment letter unequivocally indicates
that the offer of appointment as Assistant Engineer was on ad
hoc basis and Clauses 1 to 4 of the said letter further provides
that the appointment will be on ad hoc basis for a period of 6
months from the date of joining and the salary was a fixed
salary of Rs. 400 p.m. in the scale of Rs. 400 to Rs. 1100 and
the services were liable to be terminated without any notice
and at any time without assigning any reason and that the
appointment will not enable the appointee any seniority or any
other benefit under the Service Rules for the time being in
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046613
force and will not count towards increment in the time scale.
In view of the aforesaid stipulations in the offer of
appointment itself we really fail to understand as to how the
aforesaid period of service rendered on ad hoc basis can be
held to be service on regular basis. The conclusion of the High
Court is contrary to the very terms and conditions stipulated
in the offer of appointment and, therefore, the same cannot be
sustained. The regular letter of appointment dated 29.1.1982
in favour of Rakesh Kumar was also produced before us and
that letter indicates that the respondent Rakesh Kumar
alongwith others had applied to the Secretary, Haryana Public
Service Commission for being appointed as an Assistant
Engineer and the Service Commission after selecting the
number of persons prepared a list and appointment letters
were issued by the Government from the said list on the basis
of the merit position of different candidates. Thus the
appointment of respondent Rakesh Kumar was a fresh
appointment in accordance with the Statutory Rules after the
Public Service Commission adjudged their suitability and the
regular service of the respondent Rakesh Kumar must be
counted from the date he joins the post pursuant to the offer of
appointment dated 29.1.1982 and the prior service rendered
by him on ad hoc basis cannot be held to be regular service
nor can it be tagged on to the later service for earning the
benefit under the Government Circular dated 2nd June, 1989
as well as the Clarificatory Circular dated 16th May, 1990.
The conclusion of the majority judgment of the High Court,
therefore, is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained."
9. In case, the adhoc service of the appellant-plaintiff from 1973
to 1979 is excluded from computing the 30 years of service, then the
appellant-plaintiff, whose services were only regularized in the year 1979,
does not complete 30 years of service as on February 2007 when he retired
from service. That being so, the claim that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled
for 3rd ACP on completion of 30 years of service as in the year 2003, cannot
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046613
be accepted and has rightly been decided by the Courts below. Even
otherwise, no perversity in the judgments of the Courts below has been
pointed out and learned counsel for the appellant tried to re-argue the case
on merit to convince this Court to arrive at another decision than this Court
arrived at by the Courts below, which is not permissible.
10. No other argument was raised.
11. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the present regular second appeal.
12. Dismissed.
April 05, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
