Punjab-Haryana High Court

Prem Lata vs Ut Of Chandigarh & Ors on 6 November, 2024

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma

                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB




CWP-6410
    6410-2017 (O & M)
CWP-18247
    18247-2016 (O & M)                         -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                 Reserved on 26.09.2024
                                 Pronounced on
                                             on:06.11.2024

106                              CWP-6410
                                     6410-2017 (O & M)


PREM LATA                                            ...PETITIONER



                         VERSUS



UT OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS                             ...RESPONDENTS

                                              CWP-18247-2016 (O & M)

KUSUM ARORA                                          ...PETITIONER


                         VERSUS



UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                               ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:   Mr. Brajesh Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

           Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate and
           Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2
           in CWP-6410-2017.

           Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
           in CWP-18247-2016.

           Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for respondent
                                        respondent-MC
           (appearing through VC).

                                 ****

1 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -2-

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, SHARMA J.

CWP-6410 6410-2017

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated

25.11.2016 passed in Original Application No.060/00395/2016 by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh

(for short, 'The Tribunal').

2. The petitioner filed Original Application No.060/00395/2016

wherein she s prayed rayed for different reliefs but during the course of hearing, she

restricted her claim qua relief 8 (v) only, which is reproduced as under:

under:-

"8 (v) That respondents be directed to grant the

admissible benefits of ACP, Fixed Medical Allowance,

Leave Encashment, ment, Local Travelling allowance, LTC etc.

to the applicant to which her deceased husband late Sh.

Ram Naresh was entitled to on account of his deemed

regularization in service w.e.f. 04.10.2003 and disburse

the same to her by revising her family pension aand nd other

pensionary benefits after the grant of said benefits and

also grant consequential arrears thereof in terms of

revision of family pension and other pensionary benefits

along with interest @18% p.a. in the interest of justice."

justice.

3. Brief facts as stated stated in the above referred OA are as under:

under:-

"3. It is stated in the O.A. that after being declared

medically fit, deceased husband of applicant Sh. Ram

Naresh was converted as Chowkidar in work charge

cadre vide order dated 04.12.1984 (Annexure A A-3).

3). In the

2 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -3-

year 1996 on the formation of Municipal Corpor Corporation ation

Chandigarh, the office of Respondents No. 1 and 2

transferred number of persons to Municipal Corporation

and consequently Sh. Ram Naresh deceased husband of

applicant who was working as Work Charge Chowkidar

was transferred to Municipal Corporation C Chandigarh handigarh

on deemed deputation basis and his name was at Serial

No. 8 in the seniority list of work charge Chowkidars

who were transferred to MC vide notification dated

21.05.1996, where he was posted in the office of SDE,

MCPH Division No. 1, Chandigarh. The deceased

husband of applicant continued working under the said

SDE, MCPH Division No. 1 Chandigarh and

unfortunately died in harness on 05.10.2003 while in

service.

4. It is further stated that inspite of rendering about

19½ years of service on da daily wage age and work charge

basis in the Chandigarh Administration as well as in the

Public Health Division No. 1, Municipal Corporation

Chandigarh, deceased husband of the applicant was not

regularized. Consequently, on his death w.e.f.

05.10.2003, no family pens pension/other ion/other retiral benefits were

granted to the family of the deceased viz. applicant applicant--his

widow. As such, she filed O.A. No. 060/00245/2015 titled

Prem Lata & Another Vs. U.T. Chandigarh

3 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -4-

Administration & Others before th the Tribunal praying for

consideration of her case for grant of family pension and

other consequential retiral benefits and also for

considering the case of her son for appointment on

compassionate grounds. This O.A. No. 060/00245/2015

was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2015

(Annexure A-5)

5) whereby the respondents were directed to

consider and decide the representations of the applicant

and legal notice and pass a speaking and reasoned order

in the light of extant rules and regulations and earlier

decisions of this Tribunal, withi withinn a period of two months.

Since the respondents did not comply with the orders of

the Tribunal dated 24.03.2015 (Annexure A A-5),

5), the

applicant was constrained to file COCP No.

060/00146/2015 in O.A. No. 060/00245/2015 praying for

meticulous implementation of the orders passed by the

Tribunal. During the pendency of the contempt petition,

thee office of Respondent No. 4 issued an office order No.

162 dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure A A-1)

1) regularizing the

services of deceased husband of the applicant on deemed

basis w.e.f. 04.10.2003 i.e. .e. one day before his death.

However, in the said office order, tthe he respondents failed

to take into consideration the period of service of 1 year

rendered by the deceased husband of the applicant on

daily wage basis. The Tribunal granted further time to

4 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -5-

the respondents to disburse the actual benefits of DCRG,

family pension sion and other pensionary benefits to the

applicant."

4. The issue involved in the present OA with respect to the

directions to the respondents to grant the admissible benefit benefits of ACP,

medical allowance, leave encashment, travel allowance, LTC, etc, to the t

petitioner to which her deceased-husband deceased husband was entitled on account of his

deemed regularisation in service w.e.f 04.10.2003 and for disbursing the

same to her by revising her family pension and other pensionary benefits

alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

5. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the

whole record decided decide the OA and the relevant portion of the same is

reproduced as under:-

under:

"14. I have given careful consideration to the arguments

advanced by learned counsel, and perused the pleadings

of the parties and the material on record.

15. My findings regarding the claims of the applicant as

per para 8(v) of the O.A. are as follows:

                  (i)    Leave
                          eave Encashment

This claim is time barred as it should have been

made at the time when the husband of the applicant

expired while in service and O.A. filed 13 years later

cannot revive such a claim.

(ii) Fixed Medical Allowance & Local Travelling

Allowance

5 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -6-

These benefits are allowed only to the regular

employees of the UT Chandigarh Administration and

work charged employees are not covered for this benefit.

SYL case does not cover the work charged employees of

Chandigarh Administration/M.C. Chandigarh.

(iii) LTC

The work charged employees were not entitled to

the benefit of LTC. Moreover, LTC is allowed by way of

reimbursement of travel cost incurred by an employee for

to and fro journey from his place of posting to the LTC

destination. No claim on this account has even been

submitted by husband of the applicant. Hence, it is not

understood how LTC can be allowed.

(iv) ACP

The claims under ACP are normally required to be

adjudicated upon by a DB while this O.A. iss being

considered by the SB. However, tthe he fact remains that the

applicants services are only deemed regularized (w.e.f.

05.03.2003) after the judgment in Sampats case (supra)

and in fact he had no regular service whatsoever prior to

the date of regularization. Moreover, letter dated

22.07.2002 (Annexure A A-13)

13) referred to in the O.A. as

well as letter dated 31.07.2002 (Annexure A A- 14) related

to staff who have put in work charged service followed by

regular service and ACP benefit had to be given to such

6 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -7-

regular employees provided their services were otherwise

satisfactory. Clearly, these conditions are not applicable

in the case of husband of the applicant and hence, it is

clear that there is no basis for the claim of the arrears of

the ACP either. Even the office order No. 132 dated

22.07.2014 issued ssued by the Executive Engineer, MCPH

Divn No. 1 Chandigarh in the case of Ravi Kumar that

has been placed on record by learned counsel for the

respondents to show that ACP benefits have been given

to work charged employees is not relevant in the matter

as Sh. Ravi Kumar was regularized in service w.e.f.

20.11.2011 and continues to be in service even now.

16. The only claim of the applicant which can be

considered is the counting of daily wage service from

15.02.1984 to 11.04.1985. Although Although, it has been stated ated in

the short reply filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2

that this period has been counted for release of

pensionary benefits but in the rejoinder it has been stated

that no orders have been passed by the office of

Respondents No. 1 and 2 revisin revising g the net length of

service of the deceased husband of the applicant for

grant of pension. In this view of the matter, the

respondents are directed to review the position and if the

period from 15.02.1984 to 11.04.1985 has not been

7 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -8-

counted for pension purp purposes, oses, action be taken to rectify

the position."

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel of the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has

decided the issue in respect of ACP scheme without appreciating the fact

and law and in violation of Rule 154 (c) of Central Administrative Tribunal

Rules of Practice, 1993 (for short, 'CAT R Rules') ules') "Subject wise classification

of cases) pertaining to Division Bench cases in respect of ACP scheme

whereas the impugned order is passed by the learned Single Bench of

learned Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable on this

point alone and deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the

impugned order has rightly been passed and is in accordance with law.

CWP-18247 18247-2016

8. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated

17.10.2014 in Original Application No.1568/CH/2013. The following relief

was sought in aforesaid O.A :-

8 (i) (a) Impugned order dated 01.11.2013 (Annexure A A-1)

1) be

quashed/set aside.

(ii) Respondent be directed to count the daily rate service as

Data Entry Operator rendered by the applicant w.e.f.

11.06.1990 to 11.12.1994 i.e. 4½ years together with the service

rendered after regularization for the purpose of grant of

financial upgradations under ACP and MACP Scheme on

completion of 12 and 24 years service and consequently the

date of grant of first ACP be modified/reviewed to 11.06.2002 8 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -9-

instead of 12.12.2006 and also direct respondent No.2 to grant

all other connected benefits with financia financiall upgradation, arrears

thereof with interest @ 12% per annum within a time frame to

be fixed by the Tribunal in the interest of justice.

9. Brief facts of the case in Original Application

No.1568/CH/2013 are as under:-

under:

"2. Brief facts of the matter are th that at the applicant was

initially appointed as Data Entry Operator on daily wage

basis vide order dated 01.08.1990 (Annexure A A-7)

7) @

Rs.60 per day for a period of three months w.e.f.

11.06.1990 in the office of respondent no.2 and this

appointment was extended from time to time till May,

1994. Vide order dated 27.05.1994 (Annexure A A-8),

8), the

applicant was appointed to the post of LDC in the pay

scale of Rs.950-1500 1500 purely on adhoc basis for a period

of six months or till the post was filled on regular basis

and thereafter the applicants services were regularized

as LDC w.e.f. 12.12.1994, vide order dated 15.12.1994

(Annexure A-9).

9). The applicant completed the probation

period of two years in December, 1996 and was

transferred to the office of respondent no.3 i.e. Registrar,

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in

June, 2002. The applicant was granted 1st financial

upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.4000 Rs.4000-6000 6000 under ACP

Scheme w.e.f. 12.12.2006 on completion of 12 years on

9 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -10-

regular service which was count counted ed from the date of

regularization w.e.f. 12.12.1994 in terms of DOPT OM

dated 09.08.1999 and she was further promoted as UDC

in January, 2013 and is continuing as such till date.

While granting the 1st ACP to the applicant, the period

of service rendered by the applicant on daily wage basis

as Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 11.06.1990 to 11.12.1994

i.e. for 4 years was not taking into account by the

respondents. Therefore, the petitioner filed OA before

the learned Central Administrative Tribunal ,

Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh."

10. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the

whole record decided decide the OA and the relevant portion of the same is

reproduced as under:-

under:

"9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

matter. In the present case, reliance has mainly been placed on

the judgments of the C.A.T. Bombay Bench in OA No.193/2011

and other connected matters titled Karan Anant Purao & Ors.

Vs. UOI & Anr., decided on 12.09.2011, and in WP (L)

No.1202 of 2012 and other connected matters titled Union of

India & Anr. Vs. Karan Anant Purao & Ors., decided on

24.07.2013 by the Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

since in that case service on daily wages rendered by the

applicants was allowed to be taken into account for ACP

benefit. However, the facts of that case are materially different

10 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -11-

from that of the applicant. In the cases relating to the Canteen

Stores Department, the persons were appointed as LDCs on

daily rated basis after being sponsored by the employment

exchange. They were also subjected to examination/tests before

they were formally regularized and the Department had sought

the concurrence of the appropriate authority to seek exemption

regarding the selection lection of the applicants through Staff Selection

Commission. In the present case, the applicant has been

appointed without sponsorship from the Employment Exchange.

She worked as a Data Entry Operator and was later

regularized without going through any se selection lection process.

Hence, her claim is clearly distinguishable from that of the

applicants belonging to the Canteen Stores Department who

were before the C.A.T. Bombay Bench. Moreover, in view of the

rulings of the jurisdictional High Court in the matter dir directing ecting

that adhoc service is not to be counted for ACP benefits and

recognizing that the applicant whose claim is for counting for

daily wage service is on a much weaker footing, this OA is

rejected. No costs."

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order dated

17.10.2014 passed in OA No.1568/CH/2013 is not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contend that the

impugned order has rightly been passed.

11 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -12-

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case.

14. In CWP-6410-2017, 2017, the petitioner has challenged the order

dated 25.11.2016 passed in Original Application No.060/00395/2016 by the

learned Central Administrative Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on

the ground that the learned Single Bench of learned Tribunal had no

jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to ACP scheme which was to be

decided by the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal Tribunal, whereas, in CWP-

CWP

18247-2016, 2016, the same issue is decided by the Div Division ision Bench of learned

Tribunal, which is challenged before this Court.

15. Since the question involved in both the writ petitions is as to

whether the service rendered by the petitioners on daily wages/w wages/work ork charge

is to be counted for the purposes of grant of ACP, therefore, we shall decide

both the writ petitions vide a common judgment.

16. The issue involved in the present writ petitions is dealt with by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State El Electricity ectricity Board and others

versus Jagjiwan Ram and others, others, 2009 (3) SCC 661. The relevant portion

of the same is reproduced hereunder:-

hereunder:

"7. We have considered the respective submissions.

Generally speaking, a work charged establishment is an

establishment of which the expenses are chargeable to works.

The pay and allowances of the employees who are engaged on a

work charged establishment are uusually sually shown under a

specified sub-head head of the estimated cost of works. The work

charged employees are engaged for execution of a specified

12 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -13-

work or project and their engagement comes to an end on

completion of the work or project. The source and mode of

engagement/recruitment gagement/recruitment of work charged employees, their pay

and conditions of employment are altogether different from the

persons appointed in the regular establishment against

sanctioned posts after following the procedure prescribed under

the relevant Act or rules and their duties and responsibilities

are also substantially different than those of regular employees.

The work charged employees can claim protection under the

Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any

particular statute but they ccannot annot be treated at par with the

employees of regular establishment. They can neither claim

regularization of service as of right nor they can claim pay

scales and other financial benefits at par with regular

employees. If the service of a work charged emp employee loyee is

regularized under any statute or a scheme framed by the

employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment

from the date of regularization. His service in the work charged

establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular

establishment ent unless a specific provision to that effect is made

either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularization. In

other words, if the statute or scheme under which service of

work charged employee is regularized does not provide for

counting of pastt service, the work charged employee cannot

claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation of

13 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -14-

seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts,

fixation of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments etc.

8. In Jaswant Singh and others vs. Union of India and

others [(1979) 4 SCC 440] 440],, this Court considered the issue

relating to nature of work charged establishment, status of work

charged employees and held that the employees appointed on

work charged establishment are not entitled to service benefits

available to regular employees.

9. XXX XXX XXX XXX"

10. The ratio of the above mentioned judgments is that work

charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot

be equated with any other category or class of employees m much uch

less regular employees and further that the work charged

employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are

admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules or

policy framed by the employer.

11. What to say of work charged employees even those

appointed on ad hoc basis cannot claim parity with regular

employees in the matter of pay fixation, grant of higher scales

of pay, promotion etc. In State of Haryana vs. Haryana

Veterinary & AHTS Association and another (supra), a three-

three

Judge Bench ench considered the question whether service of an

employee appointed on adhoc basis can be equated with that of

regular employee for the purpose of grant of selection grade in

14 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -15-

terms of the policy contained in circulars dated 2nd June, 1989

and 16th May, 1990 990 issued by the Government of Haryana and

answered the same in negative.

negative..........................

12. In State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others

2002 (1) SCT 72: [(2002) 10 SCC 674] and State of Punjab

and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others [(2003) 11

SCC 732], the two-Judge Judge Benches referred to the judgment in

State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association

(supra) and held that adhoc service rendered by the

respondents cannot be clubbed with their regular service for the

purpose pose of grant of revised pay scales, senior/selection grade,

proficiency step-up up and for fixation of seniority.

13. A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes it

clear that the benefit of time bound promotional scales was to

be given to the employees es only on their completing 9/16 years

regular service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional increments

could be given only on completion of 23 years regular service.

The use of the term `regular service' in various paragraphs of

the scheme shows that service ice rendered by an employee after

regular appointment could only be counted for computation of

9/16/23 years service and the service of a temporary, adhoc or

work charged employee cannot be counted for extending the

benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional

increments. If the Board intended that total service rendered by

the employees irrespective of their mode of recruitment and

15 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -16-

status should be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound

promotional scales or promotional increments, then instead of

using the expression '9/16 years regular service' or `23 years

regular service', the concerned authority would have used the

expression `9/16 years service' or `23 years service'. However,

the fact of the matter is that the scheme in its plaines plainestt term

embodies the requirement of 9/16 years regular service or 23

years regular service as a condition for grant of time bound

promotional scales or promotional increments as the case may

be. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the

respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound

promotional scales / promotional increments on a date prior to

completion of 9/16/23 years regular service and the High Court

committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them

benefit of the scheme eme by counting their work charged service.

14. The order passed by this Court in Ravinder Kumar's case

is clearly distinguishable. In that case, counsel appearing for

the State had conceded that period during which an employee

had worked on work charged basis is counted for the purpose of

grant of increment as well as for computation of qualifying

service for pension. In view of his statement, the Court held that

there is no reason why such service should not be counted for

the purpose of giving additiona additionall increment on completion of

8/12 years service and higher scale on completion of 10/20

years service. The order does not contain any discussion on the

16 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -17-

issue whether the work charged service can be equated or

clubbed with regular service for grant of servi service ce benefits

admissible to regular employees. Therefore, the same cannot be

treated as laying down any proposition of law which can be

treated as precedent for other cases."

17. Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others

versus Surjit Kaur 2011 (3) SCT 328 held as under:

under:-

"A perusal of the aforesaid clarification would show that the

period of 8 or 18 years is to be reckoned from the date of

appointment on regular service and any service rendered on

adhoc basis is not to be counted for the pu purposes rposes of grant of

proficiency step-up(s).

up(s). Even otherwise, the view of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court as laid down in the case of State of Haryana v.

Haryana Veterinary and Ahts Association and another,

2000(4) S.C.T. 664: (2000) 8 SCC 4 is absolutely clear thatt it is

only regular service which could be counted for the purpose of

grant of ACP scale. However, the learned Single Judge has

placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court

rendered in the case of State of Haryana v. Deepak Sood, Civil

Appeal al No. 4446 of 2008 decided on 15.7.2008 to hold

otherwise. A perusal of the judgement in Deepak Sood's case

(supra) would show that in that case, there was no question of

reckoning of adhoc service for the purposes of grant of ACP

grade before the Court and nd the only question was whether past

service rendered with the Municipal Council would count for

17 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -18-

grant of ACP grade when the employee has been appointed on

transfer basis with the Government. Therefore, the aforesaid

judgment has no application to the fac facts ts of the case in hand."

18. Division Bench of this Court in Hanumant Singh and others

versus State of Haryana and others, others, 2008 (4) SCT 427 framed the

following questions and held as under:-

"1. Whether ad hoc service/work charged service, followed by

regular ular service, can be counted for the purposes of grant of

higher pay scale/benefit of Assured Career Progression on

completion of 8/18 or 10/20 years of service?

2. Whether ad hoc service/work charged service, followed by

regular service, can be counted for the purpose of grant of

additional increment in the running scale on completion of

10/20 years or 8/18 years of service?

3.. Whether ad hoc/work charged service, followed by regular

service, is to be counted for the purpose of pension and

seniority?

XXXX XXXX XXXX

18. The State Government has extended the benefit of work

charged service followed by regular service for the purpose of

grant of additional increment on completion of 8/18 years of

service vide instructions dated 7.8.1992, keeping in view

Ravinder Kumar's case se (supra). However, the said benefit has

been declined to the ad hoc service followed by regular service.

The said distinction drawn by the Government is Imaginary and

18 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -19-

is not in consonance with the authority in Ravinder Kumar's

case (supra). Ad hoc service, e, followed by regular service, is as

good as work charged service, followed by regular service. So,

the said distinction does not stand the test of legal scrutiny.

19. The pay scales mentioned in circulars dated 14.5.1991

and 7.8.1992 were given to class 'C' and 'D' employees on

completion of service mentioned in those circulars. In authority

reported in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the employees are entitled to count ad

hoc/work charged service for the purposes of ggrant rant of

additional increment after completion of 10/20 years of service

or 8/18 years of service. However, the Apex Court in Haryana

Veterinary and AHTS Association and others' case (supra), has

categorically held that the employees are not entitled to count cou

ad hoc service for the purpose of grant of higher scale/ACP

scale. So, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view

the above-said said authority, ad hoc service/work charged service

has to be counted for the purpose of grant of additional

increment after completion of 10/20 years of service or 8/18

years of service as detailed in the circular mentioned above. It

is further held that the said ad hoc service/work charged

service followed by regular service is also to be counted for the

purpose of seniority ority and pension.

20. So far as authority State of Rajasthan and others v.

Farooq Ahmed and another, 2005 (2) SCT 522: 2005(2)

19 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -20-

Recent Services Judgments 721 is concerned, the same is

distinguishable as in that authority itself, it has been mentioned

that counting of ad hoc service depends upon the circular

issued by the Government. The circulars issued by the State of

Rajasthan are not same as that of circulars issued by the "State

of Haryana". The relevant portion is given as under:

"The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.

Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and

another, 2000(4) SCT 664: 2000(8) SCC 44,, held

that service rendered on ad hoc basis will not be

counted for grant of selection scale. A Division

Bench, however, in State of Rajasthan v. Uma

Shanker Agarwal & Ors., (D.B Civil Special

Appeal No. 1142/2002) had distinguished the

judgment of the Supreme Court and took the view

that the period of ad hoc service rendered by an

employee should be counted for the purpose of

granting him selection scale. This view was taken

on the ground that the Haryana Rules on the basis

of which AHTS case was decided by the Supreme

Court were different than the rules with which we

are concerned. Two of us doubting the correctness

of the view of the earlier Division Bench referred

the matters to the Full Bench. This is how the

matters have come up before us."

20 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -21-

So far as reliance of petitioners on Civil Writ Petition

No. 8833 of 1999 titled Hanumant Singh and others v. State of

Haryana and another is concerned, that authority does not

help the petitioners as in that case the writ petition was

disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall decide

the dispute of petitioners regarding seniority within four to six

months.

21. The petitioners also so cannot have any benefit of authority

reported as Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST

Social Welfare Association, 2006(4) SCT 504: 2007(1) Recent

Services Judgments 111 as no benefit has been given to any of

the petitioners under the order of the Court. In the said

authority, it has been laid down that any benefit given to the

employee under the order of the Court cannot be taken away on

account of change of law subsequently.

22. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, question No.

1, referred to above, stands answered against the petitioners

whereas question Nos. 2 and 3 stand answered in favour of the

petitioners and against the respondents and it is held as under:-

under

(a) ad hoc/work charged service followed by regular service

shall not be counted ted for the purposes of grant of higher pay

scale/benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on

completion of 8/18 or 10/20 years of service.

(b) ad hoc/work charged service followed by regular service

shall be counted for the purposes of grant of additi additional onal

21 of 22

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144782-DB

CWP-6410 6410-2017 (O & M) CWP-18247 18247-2016 (O & M) -22-

increment in the running scale on completion of 10/20 or 8/18

years of service.

for the purposes of pension and seniority.

So, all these writ petitions stand disposed of with the above above-sa said

observations. The respondents are directed to fix the salary of

the petitioners, after taking into account the above above-said said

observations."

19. In view of the above, the he services rendered by the petitioners on

daily wage/work charged cannot c not be counted for the purposes of grant of

ACP,, therefore, the present writ petitions are dismissed.

20. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.




(SURESHWAR
 SURESHWAR THAKUR)
           THAKUR                               (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
    JUDGE                                           JUDGE

06.11.2024

A.Kaundal
                   Whether Speaking/reasoned            Yes/No
                   Whether Reportable                   Yes/No




                                 22 of 22