103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT VIRENDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The appellant by 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the claim raised with regard to counting of services him w.e.f. 15.03.1995 to 15.05.1996, for the purpose of granting of annual increment, has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has rendered more than one the pay scale of entitled to counting increment especially when he is ultimately regularized on the 30.04.2004. 4. Learned counsel 16.05.1996 to 29.11.1997 can be treated as deleted and his increment should be counted IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: VIRENDER SINGH V STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for the Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The appellant by way of this LPA assails order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the claim raised with regard to counting of services him w.e.f. 15.03.1995 to 15.05.1996, for the purpose of granting of annual has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has rendered more than one year of service on ad hoc the pay scale of `1400-`2600/- during the said period entitled to counting of the said period of service for grant increment especially when he is ultimately regularized on the Learned counsel submits that the break .05.1996 to 29.11.1997 can be treated as deleted and his increment be counted from 15.03.1995 onwards regularly. He relies on the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1038-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:18th of February, 2025 ..…...Appellant (s) V/s. ….....Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA KIRTI SINGH for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. of this LPA assails order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP-1719-2017 whereby the claim raised with regard to counting of services, rendered by him w.e.f. 15.03.1995 to 15.05.1996, for the purpose of granting of annual Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has ad hoc basis and was placed in the said period. Therefore, he is the said period of service for grant of annual increment especially when he is ultimately regularized on the post w.e.f. submits that the break in service w.e.f. .05.1996 to 29.11.1997 can be treated as deleted and his increment onwards regularly. He relies on the Suresh Kumar 2025.02.21 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1038-2021 (O&M) circular issued by the Department da reiterated on 31.01.1984 as well as explained in circular dated 05.12.2006. He submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in re judgment dated 10.09.2015 Singh Vs. State of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab and Others as the said case is relating to the ACP and not relating to the grant of annual 5. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Ben as Vinod Kumar submissions. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 7. We find that the appellant had admittedly been selecte ad hoc employee for 89 days by the Director Vocational Education, Haryana on 09.03.1995 and ad hoc basis w.e.f. were dispensed with and he Exchange and his name was sponsored (Practical) Instructor whereafter his services were 30.04.2004. W rendered w.e.f 2021 (O&M) circular issued by the Department dated 11.06.1974 which reiterated on 31.01.1984 as well as explained in circular dated 05.12.2006. He submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in re judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed in LPA State of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab as the said case is relating to the ACP and not relating to the annual increment. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. We find that the appellant had admittedly been selecte employee for 89 days by the Director Vocational Education, Haryana on 09.03.1995 and basis w.e.f. 15.03.1995 to 15.05.1996. After 15.05.1996, his services dispensed with and he had again applied Exchange and his name was sponsored. He was again selected as Lineman (Practical) Instructor on 29.11.1997 in the pay scale of whereafter his services were continued and While the State has already granted the benefit of service w.e.f 29.11.1997, the previous service which ted 11.06.1974 which has ave been reiterated on 31.01.1984 as well as explained in circular dated 05.12.2006. He submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in relying on the LPA-507-2015 titled as Sarabjit State of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab as the said case is relating to the ACP and not relating to the Learned counsel has relied on the judgment dated 12.03.2013 ch of this Court in CWP-2866-2009 titled State of Haryana and Others in support of his We have carefully considered the submissions of learned We find that the appellant had admittedly been selected as an employee for 89 days by the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana on 09.03.1995 and has rendered services on 15.03.1995 to 15.05.1996. After 15.05.1996, his services again applied through the Employment was again selected as Lineman on 29.11.1997 in the pay scale of `1400-`2600/- continued and regularized vide order dated the State has already granted the benefit of service service which he had earlier Suresh Kumar 2025.02.21 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1038-2021 (O&M) rendered from purpose of grant of increment. 8. The claim of the appellant is found to be misconceived. We find that after the appellant had served the pay scale of he did not challenge before any Court of law given to him thereby that from `1400/- as a rendered for more counted as he Committee. In the circumstances, increment for the period of 9. The circulars which have been cited before us reference to the cases immediately regularized or is selected on regular basis. The said circulars have been duly applied by the S 29.11.1997 to 30.04.2004 circulars cannot be extended for the period of break 10. For the reasons as above, we cannot accede to the claim made by the appellan the appointment made on appointment. However, without going into the said aspect reasons, though different from the 2021 (O&M) from 15.03.1995 to 15.05.1996 has not been counted for the purpose of grant of increment. The claim of the appellant is found to be misconceived. We find that after the appellant had served upto 15.05.1996 the pay scale of `1400-`2600/- and his services e did not challenge before any Court of law given to him on 29.11.1997 in the pay scale of that from 29.11.19,97, he was again a fresh appointee. His earlier period more than one year was neither claimed counted as he was freshly selected by the Departmental Selection In the circumstances, appellant’s increment for the period of service rendered by him earlier, The circulars which have been cited before us reference to the cases, whereafter a person has rendered immediately regularized or is selected on regular basis. The said circulars have been duly applied by the State while counting 29.11.1997 to 30.04.2004 and rendered by the appellant, however, circulars cannot be extended for the period of break For the reasons as above, we cannot accede to the claim made by the appellant. Learned Single Bench has also proceeded on the basis that appointment made on ad hoc basis cannot be said to be regular appointment. However, without going into the said aspect though different from the reasons assigned by the has not been counted for the The claim of the appellant is found to be misconceived. We 15.05.1996 on ad hoc basis in his services were dispensed with which e did not challenge before any Court of law. A fresh appointment was 29.11.1997 in the pay scale of `1400-`2600/-. Meaning again placed at the lowest pay of . His earlier period of service, which he one year was neither claimed nor could have been freshly selected by the Departmental Selection appellant’s claim for grant of one more by him earlier, is not made out. The circulars which have been cited before us, are with after a person has rendered ad hoc service is immediately regularized or is selected on regular basis. The said circulars tate while counting the services w.e.f. rendered by the appellant, however, the said circulars cannot be extended for the period of break in service. For the reasons as above, we cannot accede to the claim made t. Learned Single Bench has also proceeded on the basis that basis cannot be said to be regular appointment. However, without going into the said aspects, and for the reasons assigned by the learned Single Suresh Kumar 2025.02.21 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1038-2021 (O&M) Bench, we do not find the claim of the appellant admissible. the appeal stands 11. All pending applications in this accordingly. February 18, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2021 (O&M) we do not find the claim of the appellant admissible. stands dismissed. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [KIRTI , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : we do not find the claim of the appellant admissible. Accordingly, All pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE KIRTI SINGH] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.02.21 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document