Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. As amended by the instructions dated August 8, 1985, the services of all ad hoc/temporarily appointed employees to the class III services or posts under the Punjab Government shall be regularised subject to the conditions mentioned in the instructions dated March 29, 1985. The first condition, as seen above, was that the ad hoc/temporarily appointed employee should have completed a minimum of one year service on March 31, 1985. While calculating the period of service any break of notional nature, falling between ad hoc/temporary appointment in the same category of posts and in the same department has to be ignored. The instructions also state when the break in ad hoc service has not to be ignored. It is the case of the petitioners that none of them left the service on his own volition either to join some other department or for some other reason and that the ad hoc appointment was against the post or vacancy for which no regular appointment such as required to be made such as in the case of leave arrangements or filling of other short-term vacancies and these allegations of the petitioners are not denied. Whether the petitioners fulfil the conditions in clauses (ii) to (vii) of the notification and whether they are eligible for relaxation of the rules as contained in paragraph 2 of the notification, are to be decided only by the departmental selection committees if their names have been sent for such regularisation in pursuance of the notification and therefore, those conditions do not concern us at this stage. The only ground on which their names were not sent to the Director of Public Instruction for consideration for regularisation is that the period of notional break during the year ending March 31. 1985, was more than 30 days. Though the instructions dated March 29, 1985, above referred to, do not refer to any number of days break or as to when the break can be called notional in nature, it appears the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) had instructed the District Education Officer to send the cases of only those masters/mistresses in whose cases the break does not go beyond 30 days probably in the view that it goes beyond 30 days, it cannot be called as notional in nature. We could not find any legal basis for such instructions, nor do we find any jurisdiction or justification for issuing such instructions which are in the nature of amendment of the Government order or instructions dated March 29, 1985. In all the cases of the petitioners. the normal procedure followed appears to be to appoint them on 89 days basis and after a break of one or two days. take them again in employment. We find that during the financial year 1984-85, the entire break in service except two or three days in respect of all the petitioners was from 8th/9th May to 15th to 19th of June 1984. The month of May is the vacation period in all the schools and the break in that period is normally in order to avoid payment of salary for the vacation period. The petitioners contended that this break in service in May 1984 and the first half of June 1984 was due to. summer vacation and the curfew imposed at various places during the period of "operation bluestar". In fact, it appears that a number of representations were made relating to the exclusion of the curfew period in calculating the notional period of break. By another proceedings No. 6/4/84-GE/7017 dated July 11, 1984, of the Government of Punjab, the Government have informed all the Departments that the Government have decided that such absence whether as a result of imposition of curfew in Chandigarh. S.A.S. Nagar or any or other part of the State may be treated as duty for all purposes and in another communication of the Government No. 6/4/84-6GE/i2172, dated February 19, 1985 the Government have further clarified that the absence on account of imposition of curfew is to be treated as duty for all purposes and that the employees concerned are entitled for daily allowance for those days also. If this period of summer vacation and the absence due to imposition of curfew is taken into account, even in the year 1984-8a the period of absence will be 4 to 7 days only and. therefore. it will satisfy the condition of notional break. On these facts. there can be no doubt that the petitioners satisfy the first condition referred to in the first paragraph of the Government notification.