Dismissed

Kuldeep Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2011CWP/6603/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed writ petitions challenging the non-recognition of work-charged service for Proficiency Step-up and Assured Career Progression benefits. Relying on Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Jagjiwan Ram, it held work-charged employees are a distinct class ineligible for such regular employee benefits. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal in the earlier divergent High Court de

What the court decided

AI extract

Kuldeep Singh etc. Vs State of Pb. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.6603 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.08.2011

Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

. . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate; Mr. NL Sammi, Advocate; Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate; for the petitioner(s)

¶17

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶20

(1). “ Whether the work-charged service rendered by the petitioners before regularization of their services deserves to be counted for the purpose of grant of Proficiency Step-up and Assured Career Progression (ACP) ” is the core issue involved in these writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.17081 of 2003; 1476 & 6603 of 2004; 17985 of 2008; 6623 of 2009 which are being disposed of by this common order.

¶21

(2). On illustrative basis and for brevity, it may be noticed that in CWP No.6603 of 2004, petitioner No.1 (Kuldeep Singh) was appointed as Surveyor on work-charged basis w.e.f.

¶22

2 –

¶23

CWP No.6603 of 2004.doc

¶24

3.4.1979. His services were later on regularized w.e.f. 13.3.1996. He applied for the grant of Proficiency Step-up in the form of one increment on completion of 8/18 years of service in terms of the State Government Notification dated 1.12.1988. There is no denial to the fact that in terms of the Government Notification, only the ‘regular service’ is to be taken into account for the grant of Proficiency Step-up. Similar condition has been imposed by the State Government in its ACP Scheme.

¶25

(3).

¶26

The petitioner(s) in support of their claim rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 9.5.2006 passed in CWP No.20422 of 2005 (Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Punjab & Anr. V. President Sh. Natha Singh, Thein Dam Workers Union (CITU) and Anr.) .

¶27

(4). The above-stated writ petition was directed against the Award dated August 10, 2005 of the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the work-charged service was counted for the purpose of ACP and Proficiency Step-up. The Division Bench of this Court upheld the Award observing as follows:-

¶28

“On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this issue is not involved in the case of the claimants. The work charge service rendered by the workmen is to be counted. It

¶29

3 –

¶30

CWP No.6603 of 2004.doc

¶31

is not a case that the claimants have been appointed on ad hoc basis the workmen had been given the regularization w.e.f. March 13, 1996. it had been categorically provided in the order passed by the Government that the past service rendered by the employees on work charge/daily wage basis will be treated as qualifying service for pensionary and all other consequential benefits. All such employees became subject to the Civil Service Rules instead of certified standing orders. The right to exercise the option for regularization has also been indicated. The applicability of all these conditions, placed the claimants upon absolutely clear footing. It has also been contended that the relief stood granted to such similarly situated persons in view of the dicta rendered by this Court in Kesar Singh’s case (supra) which has further been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This has also been followed in Puran Singh’s case (supra), which has not been questioned as per the knowledge of the counsel for the respondents.”

¶32

(5).

¶33

(6).

¶34

The State Government preferred SLP (C) No.12754 of 2006 against the above-stated decision which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure A3).

¶35

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, relies upon another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others, (2009) 3 SCC 661 , wherein somewhat similar

¶36

4 –

¶37

CWP No.6603 of 2004.doc

¶38

issue was considered, namely, whether the work-charged service rendered before regularization of services deserves to be counted for the purpose of determining the eligibility of an employee for time-bound promotional scale and revision of their pay scale on completion of 9/16/23 years of service?

¶39

(7).

¶40

The Apex Court ruled as follows:-

¶41

“14. The ratio of the above mentioned judgments is that work charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of employees much less regular employees and further that the work charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules or policy framed by the employer.

¶42

xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶43

“20. A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes it clear that the benefit of time bound promotional scales was to be given to the employees only on their completing 9/16 years regular service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional increments could be given only on completion of 23 years regular service. The use of the term `regular service' in various paragraphs of the scheme shows that service rendered by an employee after regular appointment could only be counted for computation of 9/16/23 years service and the service of a temporary, adhoc or work charged employee cannot be counted for extending the benefit of time bound

¶44

5 –

¶45

CWP No.6603 of 2004.doc

¶46

promotional scales or promotional increments. If the Board intended that total service rendered by the employees irrespective of their mode of recruitment and status should be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments, then instead of using the expression 9/16 years regular service' or 23 years regular service', the concerned authority would have used the expression 9/16 years service' or 23 years service'. However, the fact of the matter is that the scheme in its plainest term embodies the requirement of 9/16 years regular service or 23 years regular service as a condition for grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments as the case may be.

¶47

21. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound promotional scales / promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service.”

¶48

(8).

¶49

(9).

¶50

Following the dictum in Jagjiwan Ram’s case (supra) where similar question has been specifically dealt with and answered, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. The contention that it is expressly mentioned that in the order regularizing services of the petitioner(s) the work-

¶51

6 –

¶52

CWP No.6603 of 2004.doc

¶53

charged service rendered by them shall be counted towards pensionary benefits also does not come to the petitioners’ rescue as the benefits under the Proficiency Step up or the ACP are not referable to pension or consequential benefits. These benefits are governed and regulated by the specific Schemes wherein it is expressly stated that only the ‘regular service’ shall be taken into count for the purpose mentioned above.

¶54

(10). Dasti .

¶55

11.08.2011 vishal shonkar

Kuldeep Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kuldeep Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurbinder Singh Vs A.R. Talwar and Ors.

Aarti and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hardip Singh Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Sanjay Vs State of Haryana

Gurcharan Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Seema and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.