citedby: 1296494

Ranjit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 October, 2023

12. No distinction has been shown to us in ad hoc service or work charge service for the purpose of counting the same as regular service. Neither ad hoc nor work charge is a regular service in cadre. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that view taken in Haryana Veterinary (supra) has also been followed in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2691: [2001(3) SLR 256 (SC)].

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G S Gill - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Farooq Ahmed And Anr. on 28 October, 2004

We have already noticed the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Haryana Case (supra), and State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and Ors. (supra). We have pointed out that the Notification in the instant case, on the basis of which the qualifying period of service for grant of Selection Grades was to be counted, are different from the circulars governing the grant of higher grades to the employees in the service of the State of Haryana & Punjab.

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - K S Rathore - Full Document

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Jagjiwan Ram And Ors on 12 February, 2009

14. The order passed by this Court in Ravinder Kumar's case is clearly distinguishable. In that case, counsel appearing for the State had conceded that period during which an employee had worked on work charged basis is counted for the purpose of grant of increment as well as for computation of qualifying service for pension. In view of his statement, the Court held that there is no reason why such service should not be counted for the purpose of giving additional increment on completion of 8/12 years service and higher scale on completion of 10/20 years service. The order does not contain any discussion on the issue whether the work charged service can be equated or clubbed with regular service for grant of service benefits admissible to regular employees. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as laying down any proposition of law which can be treated as precedent for other cases.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 133 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

State Of Raj And Ors vs Smt Sanotsh Dhinwa on 3 July, 2017

23 Apart from Haryana Veterinary case (supra) the position in law as stated in State of Punjab V. Ishar Singh (2002(10) SCC 674) and State of Punjab V. Gurdeep Kumar (2003(11) SCC 732) clearly lay down that while reckoning the required length of service the period of ad hoc, service has to be excluded. It is relevant to note that the first selection scale of pay was excluded several years back on completion of 9 years of service subsequent to regularization. After long lapse of time i.e. after nearly 8 years it was not open to be canvassed that the second selection scale of pay ought to be granted after the concerned employees having put in 18 years of service from the date of ad hoc appointment.

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Arjun Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 February, 2023

13. It may be noted here that in State of Punjab Vs. Gurdeep Kaur Uppal, AIR 2001 SC 2691, the judgment of the High Court holding that the period spent on ad-hoc service is to be counted in calculating the period of service for giving higher scale of pay, was set aside. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the cases of Doctors, who were praying for counting the period of ad-hoc service rendered by them to be included for calculating the period of 8/18 years of service for giving higher scale of pay under the proficiency step up scheme.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Balbir Singh Komal vs State Of Punjab & Others on 5 March, 2020

It is sad to observe that the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff was passed on 29.03.2011 quite in oblivion to the innumerable communications received by the plaintiff from the State declining such a prayer to the law laid down in 'State of Punjab and others vs. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal' (ibid) which was way back on 20.03.2001 and has rather relied upon a letter (Annexure P8) which was issued on 11.05.1990 and therefore could not sustain the test of legal enforceability and sustainability and therefore its vires is also quite doubtful. In the light of such a situation and the fact that the Court below in the impugned findings had highlighted the Punjab Govt. letters dated 22.07.2011 and 06.02.2014 which provide that benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme are available only to a regular employee from the date when his services were regularized in the cadre, and therefore, certainly decree could not be executed. To the very specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 21:17:56 ::: CR No.4396 of 2016 (O&M) 6 displace the same by any rules and regulations applicable to the case of the petitioner. This Court in the light of the same, does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned findings. The same need to be upheld and the present petition being without any merit stands dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - F D Singh - Full Document

Mohinder Mohan & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 7 February, 2013

In State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others, 2002 (1) SCT 72: [(2002) 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 Accociation (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."

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ashok Kumar & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 8 February, 2013

In State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others, 2002 (1) SCT 72: [(2002) 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 Accociation (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 CWP No.12594 of 1990 5 fixation of seniority."

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ranbir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 March, 2013

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 CWP No.18119 of 1994 -5- *** 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."

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Date Of Decision:11.03.2013 vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 March, 2013

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."

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results