Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Sandeep Kumar vs Revenue on 2 June, 2023 cites

State Of Haryana vs Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. ... on 19 September, 2000

"2........The question for consideration is whether the ad hoc service rendered by them is to be included for the purpose of calculating 8 or 18 years' service which is required for giving them the higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme for seniority etc. This question was considered by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Assn. [(2000) 8 SCC 4], in which a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the ad hoc service rendered by the employees is not to be included for the purpose of calculating 8/18 years of service; only regular service is to be counted for the purpose."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 221 - Full Document

M.V. Subramanyam And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 July, 2001

5. Learned counsel Shri S. Prakash Shetty representing the respondents justifying the impugned order submitted that the applicant was promoted as Income Tax Officer - Regular from 5 OA.No.170/00179/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 01.07.2016 only, hence his promotion as Income Tax Officer on ad hoc basis cannot be considered for grant of higher level of pay - grade pay of Rs. 5400/- . Learned counsel further submitted that ad hoc promotions are made for a period of one year or till regularization of their promotion, whichever is earlier. Such appointment shall not confer any right to the officers. Distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam, supra, learned counsel submitted that the said judgment was rendered in the context of ACP and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Reliance was placed on the CBDT clarification dated 14.09.2009.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 36 - Cited by 65 - Full Document
1