Cross Objection-2-LPA of 2010 in /and -1- LPA No. 825 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection-2-LPA of 2010 in /and LPA No. 825 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 06.01.2011 State of Haryana and others -----Appellants Versus S.K. Arora ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Indresh Goyal, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The short issue raised in the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the writ petitioner- respondent is entitled to count his ad hoc service followed by regularisation for the purpose of his pension and Assured Career Progression Scheme (for brevity 'the ACP Scheme'). His grievance before the learned Single Judge was that the directions be issued to the appellant to prepare his service book, to regularise the period from 28.04.1981 to 03.06.1981 by treating the same as duty period, to treat the service rendered by him from 05.01.1987 for the purposes of various benefits, to grant him selection grade on completion 5/12 years' service and to pay him arrears of unpaid Cross Objection-2-LPA of 2010 in /and -2- LPA No. 825 of 2010 (O&M) salary. It was conceded before the learned Single Judge that the period from 28.04.1981 to 03.06.1981 was regularised as a compulsory waiting period and his service book had been prepared. With regard to other benefits, the learned Single Judge has issued the following direction: “As far treating the period of initial appointment of the petitioner is concerned, accordingly to the petitioner he was selected as Sectional Officer and he joined on 05.01.1977, though, later he became Assistant Engineer. His services have been regularized in the year 1990. The aforesaid period of the petitioner right from the date of his initial appointment of Sectional Officer and later as Assistant Engineer is to be counted for purposes of counting qualifying service. However, on that basis the petitioner shall not be entitled to any seniority. The petitioner will also be entitled to ACP benefit, if any, by counting his ad hoc service. The petitioner is also entitled to unpaid salary for the aforementioned period.” 2. The petitioner stand retired from service on 31.07.2008 and the aforesaid benefits as per directions issued by the learned Single Judge have to be given to him because it is well settled that ad hoc service followed by regularisation would qualify for pension Cross Objection-2-LPA of 2010 in /and -3- LPA No. 825 of 2010 (O&M) and other retiral benefits. In that regard, reliance may be placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the Case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223. Thereafter, even the State Government have amended their rules by incorporating that the work charged/ ad hoc service followed by regularisation would qualify for pension. 3. The writ petitioner-respondent has filed his cross- objection by pleading that he was entitled to be regularised as Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.12.1978 and not from 31.12.1990 because he had continued in service w.e.f. 05.01.1977 and the learned Single Judge has refused to grant him any benefit with regard to seniority. In order to buttress his stand, the writ petitioner has placed reliance on the provision of the Haryana Service of Engineering Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), Rules, 1970 and appendix-F thereof. It is claimed that the entire length of service is to be counted for the purpose of all benefits including seniority. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hanumant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008(4) RSJ 756. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as we have perused the cross-objection. It has come on record that the writ petitioner-respondent/cross-objector stand already retired on 31.07.2008. The learned Single Judge has issued comprehensive direction that the whole service rendered by the writ petitioner-cross Cross Objection-2-LPA of 2010 in /and -4- LPA No. 825 of 2010 (O&M) objector would qualify for pension and other retiral benefits except seniority, even benefit of ad hoc service has been given, which is to count for the purpose of ACP Scheme. He has also been held entitled to unpaid salary for the aforesaid period. It is well settled that service rendered by an employee on ad hoc basis cannot count for the purpose of seniority. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the judgment of a Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra 1990 (2) SCC 715. Accordingly, we are unable to find any merit either in the appeal or in the cross- objection. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal as well as cross objection do not merit admission and accordingly, the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE January 06, 2011 Atul