Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 Date of decision. 25.09.2009 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Patiala. 2. EXN Grad Sub Station Division 132 KV Sub Station Civil Lines, Loharka Road, Amritsar. 3. The Chief Engineer, P.S.E.Board, Patiala. 4. S.E.,TOC No.2, Mini Secretariat, Near Sadar Thana, P.S.E.B. Jalandhar. ....... Petitioners Versus Sudesh Khullar d/o Om Parkash Khullar r/o 435, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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 Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --2-- judgment debtors were directed to give benefit of ad hoc service, to the decree holder, for the purpose of grant of senior time bound scale, as also make payment of the arrears of salary 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 her entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service from 09.08.1977 to 23.08.1982, for the purpose of pay pension etc. It was, however, held by the Court of Additional District Judge in its judgment dated 14.09.1995, while modifying the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1993 of the trial Court, as under:- “So, in my opinion, when there are clear cut instructions of the department that benefit of adhoc service is not to be given for the purpose of promotion and seniority etc. the respondent-plaintiff cannot claim benefit of seniority and promotion over other employees, who had joined before her on regular basis though she is entitled to the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of pay, pension etc. and the judgment and decree of the trial Court needs to be modified accordingly. No other point has been argued before me.” Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --3-- 3. An execution application was filed for the execution of decree, referred to above, wherein the impugned order was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, has been filed by the revision petitioners. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the time bound promotional scale could be granted, to an employee, by counting 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 of time bound promotional scale, after 5 and 10 years of regular service, in the Punjab State Electricity Board and for that purpose, her ad hoc service could not be counted. He further submitted that the service of the plaintiff was regularized in the year 1982 and only thereafter the prescribed period, could be counted, for the purpose of giving her the time bound benefit of promotional scale. He placed reliance on the circular letter No.197/Fin/PRC-1988 dated 23.04.1990. He also placed Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --4-- reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Veternary and A.H.T.S. Assocn. And another, etc. etc. AIR 2000 (Supreme Court ) 3020, decided by a 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 order, directing that ad hoc period of service of the decree holder, be counted for the purpose of grant of benefit of time bound promotional scale, was illegal. 6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/decree holder submitted that the ad hoc service of the decree holder was liable to be counted, for the purpose of grant of time bound benefit of promotional scale. He further submitted that the grant of benefit of time bound promotional scale, did not amount to grant of promotion to the decree holder. He further submitted that the Punjab State Electricity Board, filed a revision petition, against the grant of time bound benefit of promotional scale by counting the ad hoc service, in another case, and the same was dismissed, by this Court. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --5-- 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision petition is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is evident from the circular letter dated 23.04.1990, 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 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 Electricity Board introduced a scheme, to allow time bound benefit of promotional scales after the completion 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, in higher scale, was applicable, on the Punjab Government pattern, as in the case of teacher etc. The decree holder was governed by the terms and conditions of the aforesaid circular Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --6-- letter, which was issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board. The circular letter 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 5 and 10 years of regular service in the department. The words 'Regular Service' are very crucial. Admittedly, the services of the decree holder were regularized in the year 1982. Earlier to that she was an ad hoc employee of the Board. In view of the circular letter, aforesaid, the ad-hoc service rendered by the decree holder, could not be counted towards the grant of time bound benefit of promotional scale after the completion of prescribed period. In State of Haryana's case (supra), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that service rendered by an 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 the service rendered, by him, after regular appointment. In State of Punjab & others's case (supra) the question which fell for determination, was regarding the calculation of 8 or 18 years of service, required under the proficiency step up scheme. It was held that the rules provided that seniority shall be determined, by the dates of Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --7-- confirmation in service. The order appointing the respondents on ad hoc basis specifically stated that they will be governed by the Rules and the appointee's seniority will be determined only by merit, in which he was placed, by the Punjab Service Commission. In these circumstances, it was held that only regular service was to be counted towards seniority. It was also held that the period of ad-hoc service could not be included for calculating the period of 8 or 18 years of service under the 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 count the ad-hoc period of service, rendered by the decree holder for the purpose of grant of benefit of time bound promotional scale and to fix her pay accordingly. The Court below was also wrong in holding that it did not amount to promotion. The order impugned is contrary to the provisions of circular letters dated 26.4.1988(Ex.D-3) and 23.04.1990, referred to above and the principle of law, laid down in State of Haryana's and State of Punjab and others's cases (supra). The mere fact that a revision petition filed by the judgment debtor, in another case against a such like order, passed, was Civil Revision No. 1853 of 1998 --8-- dismissed, did not mean that this Court is bound to pass the order, in the same manner, even if, not legally permissible. The order impugned, thus, suffers from illegality, and perversity, warranting 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 revision-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) Judge 25.09.2009 dinesh