The High Court dismissed a writ petition by Class IV employees seeking regularization of services as Clerks with effect from their ad-hoc promotion dates. The court held that the department did not regularize even a single Class IV employee from the date of ad-hoc promotion, and thus the petition failed.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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.
-1-
CWP No.454 of 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 15, 2013 CWP No.454 of 1996
Dewan Chand and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: - Ms. Manjinder, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajat Bansal, AAG, Punjab
RITU BAHRI J.
The petitioners are Class IV employees who were promoted against 10% vacancies of Clerk a Class III service. They are seeking direction to regularize their services with effect from the dates of their appointments on ad hoc basis in the Class III. The dates of the appointments of the petitioners as Class IV employees in the Punjab Education Department are as under:
| Sr. | Name | Date of appointment as |
|---|---|---|
| No. | Class IV employees | |
| 1. | Dewan Chand | 4.11.1974 |
| 2. | Tota Singh | 24.4.1968 |
| 3. | RoopSingh | 28.4.1970 |
| 4. | Inderpal | 4.1.1961 |
The dates of promotion of the petitioners as Clerks on adhoc basis and the dates on which their services were regularized as Clerks are as under:
CWP No.454 of 1996
-2-
| Sr. No. |
Name | Date of promotion as Clerk on adhoc basis |
Date of regularization as Clerks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Dewan Chand | 10.12.77 | 26.10.82 |
| 2. | Tota Singh | 8.12.77 | 26.10.82 |
| 3. | RoopSingh | 28.10.72 | 1.10.80 |
| 4. | Inderpal | 7.10.70 | 1.10.80 |
The petitioners were appointed as Class IV employees and were possessing the other qualification did not have independent source of Class III posts. The State Government decided to reserve 10% vacancies occurring in a particular year in Class III services to be reserved for Class IV employees as per instructions dated 25.04.1972 (P-1). Subsequently, vide instructions dated 12.02.1981 (P-2), clarification was issued that on promotion by the State Government will have no effect on Class IV employees to be promoted against 10% quota. For the Class III employees, they can be considered for regular appointment by the Department. The petitioners have referred to a case of Achhar Singh and Pritam Dass, who had been granted regular promotion with effect from the date of their ad hoc appointments on the post of Class III employees.
On notice, reply has been filed by the Department clarifying that the promotion of Achhar Singh and Pritam Dass was made after issuance of instructions dated 12.02.1981 (P-2) whereby the ban imposed on promotion could not effect the promotion of Class IV employees against 10% quota of Clerks. The petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis as clerk much prior to the issuance of instructions as per details stated above. An affidavit dated 09.09.1997 has been filed by the Administrative Officer in which it has been clarified that the
-3-
CWP No.454 of 1996
services of Pritam Dass were not regularized from the date of promotion i.e. 02.11.1973 as Clerk. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1977 vide office order dated 28.10.1993.
An affidavit filed by petitioner No.1, a reference has been given to the date of appointment of Class IV employees and their appointments. It has been stated that the some persons who were appointed as Class IV employee in the department had approached this Court by filing a CWP No. 102 of 1980 seeking their regularization as Clerks from the date of appointments on ad hoc basis. The details of their appointments as Class IV and appointments on adhoc basis are as under:
| Sr. No. | Name | Date of Appointment of Class IV employees |
Date of Appointment as Clerk on adhoc basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Mohan Lal | 10.09.65 | 12.09.1970 |
| 2. | Manohar Lal | 12.04.70 | 01.01.75 |
| 3. | Vijay Kumar | 12.02.74 | 18.04.77 |
| 4. | Sharn Singh | 18.12.68 | 22.03.77 |
| 5. | Parma Nand | -- | 18.01.73 |
| 6. | Madan Lal | 9.11.72 | 6.12.73 |
| 7. | Hari Om | 28.12.72 | 6.2.75 |
In response to this affidavit, a reply has been filed by the Administrative Officer in which it has been clarified that vide (P-4 all these persons as state above were appointed as Class IV employee and subsequently promoted on adhoc basis but they have not been given regularization as Clerks with effect from the date of their adhoc promotion as per details given below:
| Sr. No. |
Name | Date of appointment as Class IV |
Date of promotion as Clerk on adhoc basis |
Date of regularisation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Mohan Lal | 10.9.65 | 12.9.70 | 1.1.73 |
| 2. | Manohar Lal | 12.4.70 | 1.1.75 | 1.4.77 |
| 3. | Vijay Kumar | 12.2.74 | 18.4.77 | 1.10.80 |
| 4. | Sharn Singh | 18.12.68 | 22.3.77 | 1.10.80 |
CWP No.454 of 1996
-4-
| Sr. No. |
Name | Date of appointment as Class IV |
Date of promotion as Clerk on adhoc basis |
Date of regularisation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. | Parma Nand | -- | 18.1.73 | 1.4.77 |
| 6. | Madan Lal | 19.11.72 | 6.12.73 | 1.4.77 |
| 7. | Hari Om | 28.12.72 | 6.2.75 | 1.4.77 |
This factual aspect has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, keeping in view the fact that the department has not regularized even a single Class IV employees from the date of their adhoc promotion, prayer of the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
As per instructions dated 25.04.1972, the Government had decided to introduce 10% posts from the pool of Clerks occurring in a particular year for promotion to Class IV employees. As per circular, there was certain conditions to be filled by Class IV employee for being appointed as Clerk in 10% reserved posts such as three years' service experience. The adhoc promotion or temporary promotion were made in anticipation on regular selection by S.S. Board against the Class III regular posts. However, the Government was to appoint on regular basis Class IV employees as Clerk after they fulfilling certain conditions, which was to be examined by the Departmental Selection Committee. Therefore, the date of adhoc promotion does not give right to the petitioners to seek their regularization. The Department has followed the instructions dated 25.04.1972 and has considered the case of all Peons and then regularized their adhoc promotion as Clerks. No one has has been discriminated by giving benefit of regularization from the date of adhoc promotion.
CWP No.454 of 1996
-5-
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
15.05.2013 Atul
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Class IV employees promoted on ad-hoc basis to Class III posts are entitled to regularization effective from the date of their ad-hoc promotion.
Dewan Chand and others
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
