Regular Second Appeal No.2732 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 State of Haryana & another ...Appellants VERSUS Satpal Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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: Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms.Aditi Dogra, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Regular Second Appeal Nos.2732 of 2009 (State of Haryana & another Vs. Satpal Singh & others) and 2733 of 2009 ( State of Haryana & another Vs. Satpal Singh & others). Regular Second Appeal No.2732 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : Primarily the prayer made in the suit flow from the order passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs for their regularisation by this Court in the year 1988. The writ petition filed by the respondent- plaintiffs was allowed and services of the respondent-plaintiffs were regularised w.e.f. 31.12.1988. This order, however, was passed on 1.5.1998. The State counsel would, thus, contend that suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs was barred by limitation even from the date regularisation was ordered. Mr.R.K.Malik, on the other hand, would dispute this by urging that this order was communicated in February, 1999 and thereafter respondent-plaintiffs issued a notice and ultimately filed the suit on 5.12.2001. I have perused the relief granted in the suit. Basically this relief is granted on the basis of a writ petition having been allowed in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs. The grievance made by the State counsel that directions have also been given to count the seniority of the respondent- plaintiffs by taking into consideration the adhoc service rendered by the respondent-plaintiffs would be contrary to the settled legal position. This fact is not disputed by Mr.Malik. Accordingly, the judgment under appeal would need to be clarified or modified to read “that the adhoc service rendered by the respondents shall not count towards their seniority”. Another submission made against the impugned judgment by the State counsel is that ACP is to be granted on completion of ten years regular service, which further has to be satisfactory service as well. The direction for grant of ACP has been given without considering the fact whether service was satisfactory or Regular Second Appeal No.2732 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : not. It is, therefore, clarified that the respondent-plaintiffs would be entitled to grant of ACP as per the rules, which would entitle the appellants to see if the services rendered by the respondent-plaintiffs were satisfactory or not. Lastly, it is contended by the State counsel that the first Appellate Court has not clearly understood the meaning of word “calendar year” in the judgment impugned in Regular Second Appeal. The calendar year is required to be determined as per the Industrial Disputes Act. He would contend that for calculating the calendar year, the period of one year is to be taken into consideration and it cannot go beyond that. This limited issue in one of the Regular Second Appeal may not mean substantial question of law to call for interference, especially so in the background that the respondent- plaintiffs were granted relief by this court of regularisation and the present reliefs are flowing from the said relief granted to the respondent-plaintiffs. The Regular Second Appeals are otherwise disposed of subject to the observations made above. Let the modified decree as per the observations of this court be accordingly prepared. March 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE