Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 Date of decision. 25.09.2009 1.Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Patiala. 2.Chief Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 3.Superintending Engineer, TOC No.2, Mini Secretariat, Near Sadar Thana, P.S.E.B. Jalandhar. 4.Executive Engineer, Grid Sub Station Divn. 132, Kv. Sub Station Civil Lines, Loharka Road, Amritsar. ....... Petitioners Versus Suresh Kumar s/o Jagdish Ram, LDC, PSEB, 14, Ranjit Avenue Amritsar. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.K.D. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent ex-parte. **** Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --2-- Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 10.03.1998, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which the judgment debtors were directed to give benefit of ad hoc service w.e.f. 17.05.1976 to 24.08.1982, to the decree holder for the purpose of grant of senior time bound scale, as also make payment of arrears of salary consequent upon and to fix his pay accordingly. 2. The facts, in brief, are that a suit for declaration was filed by the decree holder, which was decreed, holding him entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service from 17.05.1976 to 24.08.1982 for the purpose of pay pension etc. It was, however, held that the plaintiff/decree holder will not be entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service in the matter of Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --3-- seniority and promotion over other employees, who had joined on regular basis before him. 3. The execution application was filed for the execution of the decree, referred to above, wherein the impugned order was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, has been filed by the revision petitioners. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision- petitioners, submitted that the time bound promotional scale could be granted to an employee by counting the prescribed period from the date of commencement of service on the lowest post on which regular appointment had been made through direct recruitment. He further submitted that the decree holder could be granted the benefit Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --4-- of time bound promotional scale after the completion of prescribed period of regular service in the Punjab State Electricity Board and for that purpose, his ad hoc service could not be counted. He further submitted that the ad-hoc service of the decree holder for the purpose of grant of benefit of time bound promotional scale, could not be taken into consideration, in view of the circular letter No.197/Fin/PRC-1988 dated 23.04.1990 and office order No.267/Fin/PRC-1988 dated 27.11.1991. He also placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Veternaty and A.H.T.S. Assocn. And another, etc. etc. AIR 2000 (Supreme Court ) 3020, decided by three Judge Bench of the Apex Court and State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others, AIR 2001 (Supreme Court )2691 in support of his contention. He further submitted that, as such, the impugned Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --5-- order, directing that ad hoc service of the decree holder be counted for the purpose of grant of benefit of time bound promotional scale, was illegal. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, in my considered opinion, the revision petition is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is evident from the office circular letter No.197/Fin/PRC-1988 dated 23.04.1990 and office order dated 27.11.1991, referred to above, that the Punjab State Electricity Board was seized of the problems of stagnation, prevailing amongst the various cadres of regular employees, and its consequent effect on their efficiency. It was further felt that an employee should under ideal service conditions get normally two promotions from his initial recruitment level during his service. Thus, the Punjab State Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --6-- Electricity Board introduced a scheme to allow time bound benefit of promotional scales after the completion the prescribed period of regular service, in the department, provided the maximum benefit of being placed, in the time bound promotional scale did not exceed five increments including promotional increment (s) to the subordinate employee having a maximum scale upto Rs.3500/-, except the categories where the benefits of time bound placement to higher scale was applicable on the Punjab Government pattern as, in case of teacher etc. The decree holder was governed by the terms and conditions of the aforesaid circular letters, which were issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board. The circular letters aforesaid, clearly laid down that the time bound benefit of promotional scale could only be granted to an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board, after the completion of prescribed period Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --7-- of regular service in the department. The words 'Regular Service' are very crucial. In view of the circular letters, aforesaid, the ad hoc service rendered by the decree holder, could not be counted towards the grant of time bound benefit of promotional scale. In State of Haryana's case (supra), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that service rendered by ad hoc appointee appointed de hors recruitment Rules could not be held to be regular service. It was further held that the same could not be tagged on to service rendered by him after regular appointment. In State of Punjab & others's case (supra) the controversy which fell for determination was regarding the calculation of 8 or 18 years of service required under proficiency step up scheme. It was held that the Rules provided that seniority shall be determined by dates of confirmation, in service. The order appointing the Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --8-- respondents on ad-hoc basis specifically stated that they will be governed by Rules and appointee's seniority will be determined only by merit in which he was placed by Punjab Service Commission. In these circumstances, it was held that only regular service was to be counted towards seniority. The period of ad hoc service could not be included for calculating the period of 8 or 18 years of service under proficiency step up scheme. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, the Court below, was wrong, in holding that the judgment debtors were liable to give benefit of ad hoc service, to the decree holder for the purpose of grant of benefit of time bound promotional scale and to fix his pay accordingly. The order impugned is contrary to the provisions of circular letters dated 23.04.1990 and 27.11.1991, referred to above and the Civil Revision No. 2084 of 1998 --9-- principle of law, laid down in State of Haryana's and State of Punjab and others's cases (supra). The mere fact that the revision petition filed by the judgment debtor, against such like order, passed in another case, was dismissed, did not mean that this Court is bound to pass the order, in the same manner. The order impugned, thus, suffers from illegality, and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is accepted. The order dated 10.03.1998, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Amritsar, is set aside. (Sham Sunder) 25.09.2009 Judge dinesh