CWP No.10437 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 5.3.2010 Isham Singh and another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioners were appointed as Clerks in Municipal Council, Jagadhri where they were regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1993. In the year 1999, the surplus staff of the Municipal Committees were absorbed in various Government departments. The petitioners were also appointed as Clerks in the Haryana Education Department as surplus staff of the Municipal Committee vide order dated 24.12.1999 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner- Isham Singh was at Sr.No.5 whereas the petitioner Manmohan Kumar was at Sr.No.42 of the aforesaid order. The petitioners joined the Education Department. Both the petitioners were granted first ACP under the Haryana Civil Services ACP Rules, 1998. Later the respondents issued CWP No.10437 of 2006 2 show-notice dated 3.2.2006 to the petitioners for withdrawal of the ACP scales. The petitioners submitted their reply to the show-cause notice. Respondents, however, vide order dated 19.5.2006 withdrew the benefit of the pay scales granted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners did not qualify for first ACP from the date of their appointment in the Education Department. These orders are challenged in the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioners have completed ten years service as prescribed in the aforesaid ACP Rules. The controversy in the present petition is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Deepak Sood & Ors (Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008 decided on 15.7.2008 wherein following directions have been issued:- “Therefore, in the series of judgments given by this Court, the view has been taken that in case of a transfer/absorption from one department to another or from public sector to State though the benefit of the seniority may be denied to the incumbent but not for other benefits like pay fixation and for the pensionary benefits. Therefore, when the benefit of past service rendered in the parent department was given for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should not be counted for grant of ACP Grade. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is correct and there is no CWP No.10437 of 2006 3 ground to interfere in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs....” This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) are hereby quashed. The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the service rendered in the Municipal Committee, for the purpose of grant of ACP benefits in terms of the aforesaid judgment. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 5.3.2010 MFK