CWP No.3882 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3882 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.04.2010 **** Manohar Kumari . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who is working as a Lady Health Visitor in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Punjab, is aggrieved at the orders dated 22.12.2008 & 20.08.2008 (Annexure P13 & P8, respectively), whereby, her claim for the grant of one increment w.e.f. 8th February, 1978, which was earlier granted to her but was later on withdrawn, has been turned down. (2). The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was a regular employee on the cut-off date i.e. on 8th February, 1978? It may be CWP No.3882 of 2009.doc - 2 – noticed here that a Full Bench of this Court in Saroj Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1998 (3) RSJ 350 has ruled that the Government Policy for the grant of one premature increment for not joining the general strike applies to those employees only who were either working on regular basis and/or were entitled to the regularization of their services on or before 8th February, 1978. (3). The petitioner was appointed as a Lady Health Visitor on ad hoc basis on 24th March, 1977, though purportedly on the recommendations of the Subordinate Services Selection Board. It appears that the said ad hoc appointment was got approved from the Subordinate Services Selection Board for the regularization of her services vide memo dated 3rd October, 1978 and pursuant thereto, order dated 13.10.1978 (Annexure P10) regularizing her services was issued. The petitioner though has averred that for all intents and purposes, namely, seniority/pay fixation/increment and other incidental service benefits, she has been treated to have been appointed on 24th March, 1977, the respondents in their counter-affidavit have come up with a categoric plea that the petitioner joined her services on regular basis on 13th October, 1978 only. CWP No.3882 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). The controversy involved herein requires verification of the facts from the office records to find out as to whether the petitioner was treated to be a regular employee for all intents and purposes w.e.f. 24.03.1977. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that the claim of the petitioner regarding one premature increment shall be re-considered, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, by the Officers’ Committee constituted by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2010 passed in CWP 18754 of 2007 titled as Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the Committee shall be uninfluenced of the plea taken by the respondents and/or the earlier orders (Annexure P8 and P13). The Committee shall be obligated to verify the facts independently and thereafter only form an impartial opinion. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 01.04.2010 vishal shonkar