Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

S.K. Arora vs State Of Haryana And Others ... on 21 January, 2010

Author: Permod Kohli

Bench: Permod Kohli

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH

                                            CWP. No. 3384 of 1994
                                            Date of Decision: 21.1.2010.

S.K. Arora                                              --Petitioner

                         Versus

State of Haryana and others                             --Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

Present:-    None for the petitioner.

             Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

             Mr. Nipun Mittal, Advocate for respondent no.3.

             ***

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner who is engineering graduate was selected as Sectional Officer vide memo dated 4.11.1976. He joined on 5.1.1977 with the Irrigation Department, Haryana. Applications were invited through the Employment Exchange to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Engineers. The name of the petitioner was also recommended by the Employment Exchange, Sirsa. On the basis of the interview petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide letter dated 21.12.1978 on ad hoc basis. He was sent on deputation to Haryana State Minor Irrigation (Tubewell Corporation, Respondent no.3). He remained on deputation up to July, 1980 when he was sent to Canal Lining Circle No.6, Rohtak for administrative purpose, where he had different spells of engagement up to 1987. In between the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.3.1981 and on his representation the order of termination was ordered to be stayed on 21.5.1981. It is alleged that he remained out of service for about 37 days. The petitioner has also claimed that he has not CWP. No. 3384 of 1994 -2- been paid salary for the period from 27.12.1978 to 4.1.1979, 24.6.1979 to 30.6.1979, 2/89 to 3/89, 18.7.1990 to 18.10.1990 and again from 30.9.1991 to 29.12.1991 due to non-availability of service book. The petitioner continued to serve as an Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis till his services were regularized vide order dated 24.9.1993 w.e.f. 31.12.1990. During the pendency of this writ petition petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2008 as is reported by Mr. Brar on instructions from Sh. Ashok Kumar, Assistant in the Office of Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming following directions:-

1. To prepare his service book.
2. To regularize the period from 28.4.1981 to 3.6.1981 by treating the same as duty period.
3. To treat the service rendered by him from 5.1.1977 for purposes of various benefits.
4. To grant selection grade on completion of 5/12 years service.
5. To pay arrears of unpaid salary.

Mr. Brar has produced copy of order dated 8.11.2001, whereby period in question has been regularized from 28.4.1981 to 3.6.1981 as compulsory waiting period. It is also reported that the service book of the petitioner has been prepared which fact is also evident from the letter dated 4.8.2001 produced today in the Court.

As far treating the period of initial appointment of the petitioner is concerned, accordingly to the petitioner he was selected as Sectional Officer and he joined on 5.1.1977, though, later he became Assistant Engineer. His services have been regularized in the year 1990. The aforesaid period of the petitioner right from the date of his initial appointment of Sectional Officer and later as Assistant Engineer is to be CWP. No. 3384 of 1994 -3- counted for purposes of counting qualifying service. However, on that basis the petitioner shall not be entitled to any seniority. The petitioner will also be entitled to ACP benefit, if any, by counting his ad hoc service. The petitioner is also entitled to unpaid salary for the aforementioned period.

Let all the above benefits be determined and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months, if, not already paid.

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.1.2010.

lucky