Writ petition filed seeking direction to count ad hoc service rendered before regularization for fixation of pay and grant of proficiency step-up increments. Court dismissed the petition holding ad hoc service not countable for proficiency steps.
petitioners not entitled to count ad hoc services for proficiency step up or refixation of pay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 15119 of 1994
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 15119 of 1994 Date of Decision: January 16, 2012
Amar Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners on ad hoc basis for fixation of their pay in the revised scale of pay. Further, prayer for the petitioners is that their pay be fixed in senior scale/selection scale and the benefit of proficiency step up increments be also granted.
Brief facts of the case are that initially, the petitioners were appointed as Teachers/Masters on ad hoc basis on different dates. Later on, their services were regularized. Before the regularization of their services, they have rendered ad hoc service for a period ranging from 1 year to 5
2
CWP No. 15119 of 1994
years. The case of the petitioners is that on regularization, they were given benefit of annual increments by counting the service rendered by them as ad hoc, however, their ad hoc service is not being taken into account for grant of proficiency step up increments. The petitioners annexed notification dated 17.02.1989 (Annexure P/1), Notification dated 01.12.1988 (Annexure P/2) and the clarification of the government dated 27.02.1989 (Annexure P/3) with the petition.
The respondents have not filed any reply to the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
The petitioners have not mentioned in their writ petition the dated of their joining the service, and the dates when their services were regularized, nor any orders have been annexed with the writ petition. The instructions dated 01.12.1988 (Annexure P/2) stipulate that subject to the suitability in addition to the regular annual increment, one additional increment in the form of proficiency step up on each occasion on completion of 8 years and 18 years of service on or before 01.01.1986 shall be granted to an employee. The aforesaid benefit is to be given on adjudging the suitability of an employee for proficiency step up and the procedure for assessing the work and conduct for the aforesaid period would be the same as is applicable to a case of promotion. Provisions of the instructions are set out as under:-
“PG No. 7/14/88-5pp (1)2269/18527 dated 1st December, 1988.
On careful consideration of the recommendations of the
CWP No. 15119 of 1994
3
Third Punjab Pay Commission regarding proficiency step up (PROP), the President of India is pleased to decide as follows:-
“1. Subject to suitability, besides the regular annual increment one additional increment on each occasion on completion of 8 years' and 18 years' service on or after 'the appointed day' as defined in Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, published in Punjab Government Gazettee (Extra) on 13th September, 1988) against a post, in the form of proficiency step up(s) shall be granted to all the Punjab Government employees except the Members of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch), Deputy Superintendent of Police and Members of the Punjab Forest Service Class II.
There were some doubts raised which led to the issuance of clarification on 01.09.1989. Item No.6 of the clarification reads as under:-
(PG No.7/14/88/5FFI/16200 dated 1st September, 1989)
CWP No. 15119 of 1994
4
“I am directed to say that various departments/offices have raised certain points for clarification in respect of grant of proficiency step up, the procedure for which was laid down in the letter dated 1st December, 1988. The matter has been considered in detail in consultation with the department of Finance and the following clarifications are given on the various points.
Points Clarification 1 to 5 xx xx 1 to 5 xx xx 6. An employee was appointed on 6. The period of eight or eighteen adhoc basis wherein he had put in 3 years is to be reckoned from the years of service. Subsequent he was date of appointment on regular appointed on regular basis. For the basis. Service rendered on adhoc grant of Proficiency whether the basis is not to be counted for the period of 8/18 years to be taken purpose of grant of proficiency step from the date of his appointment on up(s).” adhoc basis or from the date he joined on regular basis as appointed by the Subordinate Service Selection Board/Departmental Selection Committee/Punjab Service Commission etc.
A perusal of the aforesaid clarification would show that the period of 8 or 18 years is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis and any service rendered on ad hoc basis is not to be counted
CWP No. 15119 of 1994 5
for the purposes of grant of proficiency step-up(s). Even otherwise, the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and Ahts Association and another, 2000(8) SCC 4, is absolutely clear that it is only regular service which could be counted for the purpose of grant of proficiency step up. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Surjit Kaur, 2011(3) RSJ 699.
As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant writ petition is
dismissed. The petitioners are not entitled to count their ad hoc services for the purpose of proficiency step up and refixation of pay. As per the settled law, ad hoc service can be counted towards the pensionary benefits.
January 16, 2012 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether ad hoc service rendered before regularization can be counted for the purpose of grant of proficiency step-up increments.
Whether advertisement service rendered before regularization can be counted for the purpose of refixation of pay in revised scale.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and Ahts AssociationReferred¶36
State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and Ahts Association and another, 2000(8) SCC 4 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab vs. Surjit KaurReferred¶36
State of Punjab and others vs. Surjit Kaur, 2011(3) RSJ 699
Amar Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
