Punjab-Haryana High Court
Radhey Shyam And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 29 November, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.17824 of 1996 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17824 of 1996
Date of Decision: 29.11.2013
CWP No.17824 of 1996
Radhey Shyam and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Haryana and another
..Respondents
CWP No.2150 of 1997
Sewa Ran and others Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CWP No.2943 of 1997
Jagdish Kumar Sehrawat ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.17824 of 1996.
Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate, for
Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.2150 of 1997.
Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate, for
Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.2943 of 1997.
Dr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
Feeling aggrieved against the action of the respondent- Vandana 2013.12.07 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17824 of 1996 2 State denying the benefit of higher standard pay scale on completion of 10/20 years of service and not counting the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of completion of 10/20 years of service, petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions. All these three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.17824 of 1996 Radhey Shyam and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2150 of 1997 Sewa Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others and 2943 of 1997 Jagdish Kumar Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and others, are based on identical facts and similar issues are involved, thus, these three cases are being disposed of vide this common order. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being recorded from CWP No.17824 of 1996 Radhey Shyam and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another.
Learned counsel for the State, at the very outset, submits that the controversy involved in the present case has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.07.2008 rendered in CWP No.7862 of 2006 (Hanumant Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) 2008 (4) SCT 427. He submits that the relief claimed by the petitioners has not been found to be justified in law by the Division Bench of this Court in Hanumant Singh's case (supra).
The observations made in para 22 (a) of the judgment read as under:-
"Therefore, in view of the above discussion, question No.1, referred to above, stands answered Vandana 2013.12.07 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17824 of 1996 3 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:-
a) ad hoc/work charged service followed by regular service shall not be counted 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."
The factual aspect of the statement made by learned counsel for the State based on the judgment in Hanumant Singh's case (supra), could not be denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the above said undisputed position on record, the instant writ petition is ordered to be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 04.07.2008 rendered in Hanumant Singh's case (supra).
Disposed of accordingly.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 29.11.2013 vandana Vandana 2013.12.07 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document