CM-4762-CWP-2025 in -1- CWP-20177-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CM-4762-CWP-2025 in CWP-20177-2017 Date of Decision :05.04.2025 Ajaib Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-4762-CWP-2025 1. Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court by which, the main writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Notice of the application to the respondents. 3. Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as made in the present application. 4. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court is recalled and the main writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number and status and on the joined AARTI SHARMA 2025.04.08 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4762-CWP-2025 in -2- CWP-20177-2017 request of learned counsel for the parties, is taken up for hearing today itself. CWP-20177-2017 5. In the present petition, the only claim being raised by the petitioners-employees is that they should be given the benefit of continuity in service on the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer from the date of their initial appointment by taking into consideration the ad-hoc services rendered by the petitioners and grant the petitioners the benefit of higher pay-scale along with all consequential benefits, which claim has not been granted by the respondents No.1 & 2 vide order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P/7) 6. In reply to the said claim of the petitioners-employee, the respondent-State has submitted before this Court that the promotion of the petitioners-employee on the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer was against the direct quota post and that too on temporary basis and it is only when the post in its own promotion quota became available/vacant, the petitioners were promoted on regular basis from which date the benefits have already been given to the petitioners-employee. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 8. The contention raised by the petitioners-employee is that whether the total length of service was taken into account for the grant of the benefit of higher pay-scale/ACP or not and that their ad-hoc services should also be taken into account for the said benefit. AARTI SHARMA 2025.04.08 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4762-CWP-2025 in -3- CWP-20177-2017 9. The question which has been raised by the petitioners- employee is no longer res integra and has already been decided by 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, holding that the ad hoc service rendered by an employee cannot be taken into account for the grant of ACP as well as selection grade. 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 controversy beyond any doubt and the only conclusion which could be drawn from theaforesaid Rules is that the services rendered either on adhoc basis or as a stop-gap 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 Memoranda dated 2nd June, 1989 and 16th May, 1990, and therefore, the majority judgment of the High Courtmust 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 pursuance 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 provide 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/- AARTI SHARMA 2025.04.08 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4762-CWP-2025 in -4- CWP-20177-2017 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 Services 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 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 pursuance 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 AARTI SHARMA 2025.04.08 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4762-CWP-2025 in -5- CWP-20177-2017 Clarificatory Circular dated 16th May, 1990. The conclusion of the majority judgment of the High Court, therefore, is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained.” 10. Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana Veterinary Association’s case (supra), the adhoc service cannot be taken into account for the grant of benefit of proficient step up or higher pay scale. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut the said settled principle of law. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners-employee submits that even though, the benefit of increment and proficiency step up cannot be granted on the basis of the adhoc service but the total service rendered by the petitioners-employee is liable to be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the aforementioned fact. 14. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988, P & H 265, the total service of an employee including the adhoc service is to be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits of an employee. 15. Hence, the total service rendered by the petitioners included the service rendered on adhoc basis will be treated as valid qualifying service for computing their pensionary benefits. AARTI SHARMA 2025.04.08 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4762-CWP-2025 in -6- CWP-20177-2017 16. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. April 05, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2025.04.08 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document