Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision:11.03.2013 vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 March, 2013
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.18123 of 1994 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No.18123 of 1994 Date of decision:11.03.2013 Rajinder Kumar and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
2. CWP No.2553 of 1995 Rajinder Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents G.S.Sandhawalia J, (oral).
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.18123 of 1994 and 2553 of 1995 as the facts and questions of law involved in both the petitions are common. However, the facts are culled out from Civil Writ Petition No.18123 of 1994.
2. The petitioners are seeking direction for counting the service rendered by them on adhoc basis for the purpose of fixing of pay in the revised scale of pay for getting the benefit of senior/selection scale of pay and for granting the benefit of proficiency step-up increments etc.
3. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they had joined as teachers/masters in the respondent department on adhoc basis on different dates and their services were regularised. After regularisation, the pay CWP No.18123 of 1994 -2- **** scales of the Punjab Government employees including that of the teachers were revised from time to time. Every time the pay of the petitioners was fixed in the revised pay scales after counting total service rendered by them including the period of adhoc service.
4. On the recommendations of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales of the Punjab Government employees including serving in the Education Department were revised with effect from 1.1.1986. The State had issued Instructions dated 17.2.21989 revising the pay scales of the teachers/masters in the form of three grades structure with effect from 1.1.1986. Additional increments on each occasion on completion of 8 and 18 years of service rendered in the same scale on or after 1.1.1986 in the form of proficiency step-up was granted to all the employees vide letter dated 1.12.1988. Subsequently, letter dated 27.2.1989 was issued clarifying that giving of next scale i.e. Senior scale or selection scale/grade did not involve any jumps or pay fixation benefit and the teaching personnel whose scales of pay had been revised on three grade pay structure were entitled to the proficiency step-up increments in accordance with the Government instructions. Accordingly, the writ petition has been filed on the ground that action of the respondents in counting the regular service and not the adhoc/officiating service for granting the senior/selection scale was arbitrary.
5. In the written statement filed by respondents No.1 to 3, defence taken was that the petitioners concealed the clarification letter issued by the State Government on 1.9.1989. Clarification was given in respect of grant of senior scale/selection grade and proficiency step-up increments and it was specifically mentioned that period of eight or eighteen years was to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis and service rendered on adhoc basis was not be to be counted for the purpose CWP No.18123 of 1994 -3- **** of grant of proficiency step-ups.
6. Counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others (2009) 3 SCC 661. A perusal of the said judgment goes on to show that the Hon'ble Apex Court while relying upon State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association (2000) 8 SCC 4, State of Punjab Vs. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal (2003) 11 SCC 732 and State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others (2002) 10 SCC 674 held that work charged employees and employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot claim parity with the regular employees in the matter of grant of higher pay scale and promotion etc. since they constituted a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of the employees much less regular employees. It was held that adhoc period cannot be used for the purpose of grant of revised pay scales, senior/selection grade, proficiency step-up and for fixation of seniority. The relevant para reads as under:
"12. In State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others [(2002) 10 SCC 674] and State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others [(2003) 11 SCC 732], the two-Judge Benches referred to the judgment in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association (supra) and held that adhoc service rendered by the respondents cannot be clubbed with their regular service for the purpose of grant of revised pay scales, senior/selection grade, proficiency step-up and for fixation of seniority."
7. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
CWP No.18123 of 1994 -4-
****
11.03.2013 (G.S.Sandhawalia)
Pka JUDGE