IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 1077 Taranjit Kaur State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. towards fixation of pay was withdrawn without amount paid sought to be recovered. petition in terms of Haryana and others, decided on 18.01.2024 counsel has no objec IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Taranjit Kaur Versus f Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Inayat Khullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel submits that the benefit of towards fixation of pay was withdrawn without amount paid sought to be recovered. He prays for disposal of the present petition in terms of Mahabir Parshad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-12001-2006, decided on 18.01.2024 alongwith connected cases, counsel has no objection, relevant of which read “2. It is not disputed at Bar that the issue raised herein stands settled as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association, (2000) 8 SCC 4, wherein it has be held that the adhoc service prior to regularisation cannot be counted for service benefits including grant of increments. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders. 3. It is also not disputed that almost all the petitioners have retired from service, and even otherwise it IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16233-2007 (O & M) Date of decision: 14.05.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Advocate, Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. Learned counsel submits that the benefit of ad hoc service towards fixation of pay was withdrawn without passing any order and He prays for disposal of the present Mahabir Parshad and others vs. State of 2006, involving the same issue, alongwith connected cases, to which learned State relevant of which reads thus: It is not disputed at Bar that the issue raised herein stands settled as per law laid down by the Supreme State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and , (2000) 8 SCC 4, wherein it has been held that the adhoc service prior to regularisation cannot be counted for service benefits including grant of increments. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the It is also not disputed that almost all the petitioners have retired from service, and even otherwise it PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.01 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-16233-2007 -2- is settled that the amount of benefit given cannot be recovered from them post retirement in terms of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334. 4. In this view, these petitions stand disposed of directing the respondents not to effect recovery from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders.” 2. Ordered accordingly. 14.05.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.01 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.