State of Punjab and Anr. versus Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions c of Service) Rules, 1994 - r. 8 - Seniority - Determination of - Held: Only period of regular service rendered by the employee to be counted and not period of ad-hoc service.

¶10

Respondents serving as Clerks under the State of Punjab, were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis and later D regularized. At the time of their appointment, Respondents were governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.

¶11

,.

¶12

The question which arose for consideration in the . E present appeal was as to whether the period of ad-hoc service rendered by the Respondents was to be counted for the purpose of seniority.

¶13

Allowing the appeal, the Court

¶14

HELD:1. In Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (GenF eral and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, it is provided that the seniority of the persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ad-hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. G Further, in the orders appointing the respondents on adhoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated in paragraph Ill of the appointment letter that the appointees' seniority will be determined only by merit in which H 1136

¶15

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHWANI 1137 KUMAR & ORS.

¶16

he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service CommisA sion. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be counted towards seniority. The judgment/order passed by the High Court holding that ad-hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay is unsustainable and has to be vaB cated. [Paras 4, 5] [1139,A-C; 1139,D-E]

¶17

State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Asso- ciation and Anr. (2000) 8 sec 4 - relied on.

¶18

However, if any of the respondents has drawn any c amount on the basis of the High Court's judgment granted to by including the period of his ad-hoc· service then the State Government shall not recover the amount already drawn by the employee though for fixation of the cadre seniority t_he position as laid down in this order will govD ern. [Para 6] [1139,F]

¶19

Case Law Reference

¶20

(2000) s sec 4 relied on Para 4

¶21

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5892 E of 2008

¶22

_From the final Judgment and Order dated· 20.4.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP ,: No. 12230 of 2003

¶23

F

¶24

K.K. Khurana, A.AG., Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants.

¶25

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶26

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶27

)

¶28

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a G Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the ad-hoc services of the respondents were to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Reliance was placed on certain other orders of the High Courts passed earlier. It is stated by - learned counsel for the appellants that this Court had occasion H

¶29

1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶30

[2008] 13 S.C.R.

¶31

·A to deal with the appeals filed by the State questioning correctness of the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the High Court. Respondents were initially appointed during the period 1978 to 1987 as Clerks on ad-hoc basis and were regularized between the period from 1980 to 1Q90. Respondents

¶32

B submitted reRresentations clair:ning th.e benefit of their ad-hoc ser'1ices relying on the judgment tQ which reference has been made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Prayer was to the effect that the ad-hoc service was to be counted for all int.ents and purposes including seniority.

¶33

C 3. The main question !hat a_rises for consideration in this appeal is yvhether the period of ad-hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for .calculating ihe seniority. This question was cons_idered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court- in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS As- D sociation and Anr. (2000 (8) SCC 4) wherein this Court took the view that for calculating &/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad-hec service.

¶34

E

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the respondents who are Cle_rks serving under the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and circulars different from those which were considered in the decided case and, therefore, the ratio in that case will not be applicable in F these cases. We have carefully onsidered the said contention. We have also considred the Government Letter No.4/8/ 85-3PPl/4408 dated 13.3.1996 containing the policy instructions. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear that the instructions contained therein were based on the decision of the Punjab G and Haryana High Court taking the view that ad-hoc service should be taken into account for the purpose. This letter in our view ·can no lbnger form the basis of the contention in view of the recent decision by this Court in State of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. (supra). Undisputedly, H the respondents at the time of their appointment were governed

¶36

STATE tlF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHWANI 1139 KUMAR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶37

by lhe Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions A of service) Rules, 1994. In Rule 8 of the said Rules if is provided that the seniority of fhe persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ?d-hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular' appointment. Further, in the orders appointing the B respondents on ad-hoc basis, it was specifically sfated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was furthe,r · stated in paragraph Ill of the appointment letter that the appoin" tees' seniority will be determined only by merit in which he or . she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus it is Cr · clear that only regular service is to be counted towards senior- . ity. .

¶38

We do not .feeHt necessary to delve fu"rther into merits

¶39

of the· cifae in· view .of the decision· otthis Court in State of Hayana v. Har/aha Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the case in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the. judgrrienUorder passed by the High 9ourt holding that ad-hoc . service is to be.included in calculating the period of.service for

¶40

D

¶41

, ·giving the higher scale of pay is unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgmenU order of the High Court under challenge is set aside.

¶42

E

¶43

. 6: However, we make it clear th"at if any of the respondents has drawn any amount on the basis of the High Court's

¶44

~ · judgment granted to by inclu.ding the period of his ad-hoc ser. vice then the State Government shall not recover the amount. · already dran by the employee though fo fixation of the cadre seniority the position as laid down in this order will govern. No costs.

F

G

B.B.B. ·

Appeal allowed.· . . .

¶49

: )

State of Punjab and Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab and Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihari Rai versus State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Budhi Lal versus State of Uttarakhand

Aslam @ Deewan versus State of Rajasthan

Balwant Singh and Ors. versus State of H.P.

Union of India and Ors. versus M/S Dharamendra Textile Processors and Ors.

Baby Manji Yamada versus Union of India & Anr.