Punjab-Haryana High Court
Umed Singh Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058008
RSA-3041-2014 (O&M) & CWP-20340-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:058008
(209) RSA-3041-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 29, 2024
State of Haryana through Collector, Gurgaon and others
.. Appellants
Versus
Ved Parkash .. Respondent
(209-A) CWP-20340-2013
Umed Singh and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
for the appellants in RSA-3041-2014 and
for the respondents in CWP-20340-2013.
Dr. S.K. Bhar, Advocate, for
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondent in RSA-3041-2014 and
for the petitioners in CWP-20340-2013.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, one appeal i.e. RSA No.3041 of 2014
and one writ petition i.e. CWP No.20340 of 2013, the details of which have
been given in the heading, are being disposed of as both the appeal as well
as writ petition involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. Question which arise in these petition/appeal is whether, the
adhoc service rendered by an employee prior to regularization of his/her
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058008
service can be taken into account as a valid service for the grant of ACP or
not. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff/petitioners is that the adhoc
service rendered by them should be taken into account as a qualifying
service for the grant of the benefit under the Assured Career Progression
Scheme on completion of 8 years of service.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents submits that the
said issue is no longer res-integra and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India 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 benefit of adhoc service cannot be granted for computing
the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme hence, the
judgments of the Courts below in RSA No.3041 of 2014, which grants the
said benefits, are contrary to the settled principle of law and are liable to be
set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the writ
petition i.e. CWP-20340-2013 is also liable to be dismissed in view of the
judgment in Haryana Veterinary's case (supra).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Haryana Veterinary's case (supra), adhoc service which
an employee has rendered prior to his/her regularization, cannot be taken
into account as valid service for the grant of proficiency step up or the
benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The relevant portion
of the 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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058008
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 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058008
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."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent-plaintiff has not
been able to rebut the said judgment in Haryana Veterinary's case (supra)
in any manner so as to claim that the adhoc service is to be treated as valid
service for computing the period as envisaged under the proficiency step up
or the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.
8. Keeping in view settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore in
Haryana Veterinary's case (supra), the claim of the employees is
misplaced and cannot be allowed hence, the judgments and decrees
impugned in RSA No.3041 of 2014 are perverse to the settled principle of
law as settled in Haryana Veterinary's case (supra) and cannot be
sustained and are accordingly set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-
plaintiff is also dismissed. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed.
9. With regard to CWP-20340-2013, keeping in view the settled
principle of law, the relief claimed cannot be allowed as the same is
contrary to the settled principle of law settled in Haryana Veterinary's case
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058008
(supra) hence, the writ petition is also dismissed.
10. Any civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands
disposed of.
11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
April 29, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
