Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh & Ors vs Punjab State & Ors on 3 March, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030390
CWP-2722-2006 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239 CWP-2722-2006 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.03.2025
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.
...... Petitioners
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE & ORS.
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
***
Present :- Mr. H. K. Brinda, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. T. P. S. Chawla, Senior DAG, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioners is that their workcharge service which they have rendered to
respondents should also be taken into account for granting them of the
benefit under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
petitioners initially were rendering their service on workcharge basis and
eventually their services were regularized, but the grant of benefit under the
ACP scheme has only been granted to them from the date their services were
regularized and not by counting the total length of service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.17529
of 2017 titled as "Gurmeet Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030390
CWP-2722-2006 :2:
others" decided on 18.11.2024.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the
other hand submits that the law on the present issue has already been settled
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.13423 of 1996
titled State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association
decided on 19.09.2000 wherein, the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court was reversed to hold that for the grant of the benefit under the ACP
scheme, only the time period of regular service rendered by petitioner can
be taken into account and not that of workcharge service.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
benefit under ACP scheme being sought by the petitioners by placing
reliance upon Gurmeet Singh and others (supra) has not been given to any
of the similarly situated employee and as such no detail has been given by
the petitioners that they have been discriminated in any manner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
7. The question, whether the workchage service/ad hoc service
rendered by an employee prior to regularization will be good enough to be
treated as valid service for computing the grant of benefit under ACP
scheme, has already been decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in
Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association (supra). The relevant para
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 Recruitment Rules puts the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030390
CWP-2722-2006 :3:
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."
8. A bare perusal of the judgment would show that after
considering the law, the finding has been recorded by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that for the grant of benefit under ACP scheme, the ad hoc
service/service rendered on work charge basis cannot be taken into account.
9. As far as the reliance being placed by the petitioners on the
order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Gurmeet Singh and
others (supra), it may be noticed that the relief claimed therein was only
provided to the employee on the ground that the similarly situated
employees were granted the same relief.
10. In the present case, no fact has come on record to show that any
employee who was similarly situated as the petitioners has been granted the
benefit under ACP scheme by taking into consideration the benefit of
workcharge service. Once, this is an undisputed fact that there is no
discrimination in the present case, the benefit granted by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in the judgment Gurmeet Singh and others (supra)
will not be applicable in the case of the petitioners to grant them the relief
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030390
CWP-2722-2006 :4:
claimed in view of the settled principle of law in Haryana Veterinary and
A.H.T.S. Association (supra).
11. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, relief
claimed, for the grant of the benefit under ACP scheme by counting the
total length of service including the workchage service, cannot be accepted
and the present petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
03.03.2025 JUDGE
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
