IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 7570 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 9, 2009 DALBIR SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners on adhoc/temporary basis with nominal breaks, for the purposes of fixation of their pay in the revised scale of pay and seniority. It has further been prayed that the petitioners be also granted proficiency step-up in accordance with total service rendered by them, in accordance with the Civil Writ Petition No. 7570 of 1990 2 instructions issued by the State of Punjab. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioners were appointed as Teachers/Masters in the Punjab Education Department on adhoc/temporary basis, on different dates. The services of the petitioners were later on regularised, as such. The petitioners served the respondent- Department on adhoc/temporary basis for different periods. On regularisation of the services of the petitioners as Teachers/Masters, the petitioners were given the benefit of adhoc/temporary service rendered by them before regularisation of their services. The petitioners were given one annual incement for each completed year of service even on adhoc/temporary basis with nominal break. For fixation of their pay at the time of rgularisation, total service rendered by the petitioners on adhoc/temporary basis was counted and the pay was fixed accordingly. After regularisation of their services, the pay scales of Punjab Government employees, including that of Teaches, were revised from time to time. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioners was also revised. By virtue of the above, on the basis of recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission, the claim is for additional increments on completion of 8/18 years of service on or after 1.1.1986. In para-11 of the petition, it has been pleaded that the benefits of service rendered n adhoc/temporary basis is not being given for grant of proficiency step up on completion of 8/18 years of service. It has been pleaded that no distinction can be made in service on adhoc/temporary/officiating basis and regular basis. Civil Writ Petition No. 7570 of 1990 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while drawing the attention of the court towards para-2 of the reply (on merits), states that the petitioners are entitled to the extent that adhoc/temporary service is countable towards annual increments. The benefit of proficiency step-up can only be given on completion of 8/18 years of service after regular appointment. It has been asserted that the benefits have been given to the petitioners in accordance with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others, JT 2001 (5) SC 57. In Gurdeep Kumar Uppal's case (supra), the following has been held (in paras 4 and 6):- “4. The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals in whether the period of ad hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for calculating the period of 8 or 18 years of service for giving higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme. This question was considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Another (JT 2000(10) SC 561) wherein this Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 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 hoc service.” “6. We do not feel it necessary to delve further into merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary AHTS Association and Another (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the cases in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/orders passed by the High Court holding that ad hoc service is to be included in calculating the Civil Writ Petition No. 7570 of 1990 4 period of service for giving the higher scale of pay are unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgments/orders of the High Court under challenge are set aside.” In view of the law as laid down in Gurdeep Kumar Uppal's case (supra), portions of which have been extracted above, and the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-State, the petition has no merit and is dismissed. November 9, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?