CWP No.1459 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No.1459 of 2011 Kishan Dutt .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 2. CWP No.1464 of 2011 Om Parkash .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Date of decision : 02-12-2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP No.1459 of 2011 titled as Kishan Dutt v. State of Haryana and others and CWP No.1464 of 2011 titled as Om Parkash v. State of Haryana and others as common question of law and fact CWP No.1459 of 2011 -2- is involved in both the petitions. The claim of the respective petitioners which has been made in the instant petitions is that service rendered by them as a Junior Lecturer Assistant on ad hoc basis be counted for the purposes of granting higher scale on completion of ten years service as contemplated in the ACP rules and the schemes formulated thereunder. The claim of the petitioners was initially considered favourably and they were granted the benefits but subsequently the benefits have been withdrawn on the ground that it was done erroneously and the rules contemplate that only regular satisfactory service is to be considered for the grant of such benefits. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, who have made their assertions and counter assertions on the basis of stand taken by them in the petitions and the reply respectively, I am of the opinion that the matter regarding the admissibility of the benefit of ACP scales to the petitioners by counting their period of ad hoc service rendered by them is no longer res-integra. The question has been conclusively settled by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Ishar Singh, 2002(2) SLR 289/2002(10) SCC 674 wherein it has been held that only regular satisfactory service can be taken into consideration for considering the grant of ACP scales. This Court also in the case of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2002(4) S.C.T. 432 and The Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union v. The State of Punjab and others, 2008(5) S.L.R. 684 has held likewise. In view of the aforesaid, the decision of the respondents to CWP No.1459 of 2011 -3- discontinue the benefit erroneously granted to the petitioner cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the recovery of the benefit cannot be permitted in view of the observations of the Full Bench rendered in the case of Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) S.C.T. 333. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance as benefits was granted to them without making any misrepresentation of facts and thus in view of what has been stated in Budh Ram's case (supra), the respondents are restrained from making any recovery of the financial benefits already granted to the petitioner. Both the petitions are thus disposed of with an observation that petitioners are not entitled to get ad hoc service counted for the purposes of grant of ACP scales. However, the financial benefits be not recovered from the petitioners in view of what has been stated above. (MAHESH GROVER) 02-12-2011 JUDGE manju