Allowed

Krishan Gopal v. the State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2010CWP/2236/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought fixation of seniority and pension considering his adhoc service period. The Court directed the respondents to re-fix seniority and pension by including the adhoc service period, relying on Hanumant Singh.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to re-fix seniority and consequently pension of the petitioner by taking into account the period of adhoc service rendered.

Krishan Gopal Vs the State of Haryana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 2236 of 1990. Date of Decision: 14.1.2010

¶4

¶5

Krishan Gopal

¶6

.. Petitioner VS.

¶7

The State of Haryana & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶10

Present:Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

**Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. DAG Haryana. *****

¶12

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as enshrined under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the respondents to re-fix his seniority w.e.f. 15.10.1969 instead of 24.9.1971.

¶14

There is no dispute to the factual aspect of the matter that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on adhoc basis with respondent Department on 15.10.1969 and was given regular appointment to the same post vide letter dated 20.9.1971. The only claim made in the instant writ petition is for fixation of seniority w.e.f. 15.10.1989 while taking into account the period of service rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis with the respondent-Department instead of 24.9.1971, as fixed by the Department.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Hanumant Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2008(4) SCT 427, to urge that the adhoc service followed by regular service has to be counted for the purpose of seniority and pension also.

¶16

Learned State counsel has failed to show that the appointment of the petitioner on adhoc basis was made dehors to the rules or not in consonance with the procedure laid down for appointment to the regular

¶17

¶18

post. Rather, it has come on record that initially the petitioner was given appointment on adhoc basis on the recommendations made by the Employment Exchange, followed by regular appointment consequent upon the selection made by the Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, as is evident from Annexure P-2.

¶19

Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Hanumant Singh's (supra), the petitioner is also entitled for counting of adhoc service rendered by him, towards seniority and pension.

¶20

The writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated above. The respondents are directed to re-fix the seniority and consequently the pension of the petitioner by taking into account the period of adhoc service rendered by him.

¶21

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶22

January 14,2010 Jiten

Krishan Gopal v. the State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Gopal v. the State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Bodla Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdhian Singh Vs Karnail Singh

Chander Rekha Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Vs State of Pounjab