Civil Writ Petition No.8901 OF 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.8901 OF 2007 Date of Decision: 9 -12-2008 Ishwar Sharma ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN **** Present: Mr. S.K.Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana **** K. KANNAN, J. I. Scope of enquiry 1.The entitlement for grant of first Assured Career Advancement Scheme (ACP) on the completion of 10 years from the date when the petitioner had been working in a private college, which was subsequently taken over by the Government, is the issue for adjudication in this writ petition. II The basis of claim of the petitioner 2.By the impugned proceedings dated 15.1.2004, the first respondent acting through the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No.8901 OF 2007 (2) Chandigarh has informed the second respondent, who is the Principal of Government College, Nahar that the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of A.C.P. w.e.f. 1.7.2002 on the basis of his regular appointment on 23.6.1992. The date 23.6.1992 is also the date when Shri Krishna College, Kanwali was taken over by the Government. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period to be reckoned for the calculation of the A.C.P. is the date of entry as Lecturer in the private college on 10.11.1986. III Reliance on authorities, which have no application 3.The Counsel for the petitioner relies on judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court for the construction which he canvasses in the writ petition. The decision rendered by this Court in Dr. Romila Jain vs. State of Haryana reported in 1995(3) RSJ 807 dealt with a case of grant of senior scale by computing the period of service in a private college before a person is selected for appointment in another college in terms of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. The learned Single Judge of this Court had held that the previous service rendered by an employee before appointment as Lecturer in the University/college could be counted for the purpose of grant of senior scale/selection grade under the Career Advancement Scheme for Lecturers. The reliance on this judgment is without any basis because the case was with reference to a particular set of facts of the case and in the context of a specific University Grants Commission's guidelines providing for reckoning the previous service in another college for grant of senior scale/selection grade to a Lecturer. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment in Harpat Singh vs. State of Haryana and another reported as 1996(1) S.C.T. 610 to the effect that once the Government took a decision to absorb the staff rendered surplus in equivalent grades or permit them to carry the old grades of pay, the Government cannot at its Civil Writ Petition No.8901 OF 2007 (3) own sweet will depart from the equivalent grades granted to them without any rational justification or any valid reasons. The decision has no bearing to the facts involved in the case and it is clearly misplaced. Yet another judgment, to which the petitioner placed reliance is Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another vs. Union of India and another reported in 1999(1) RSJ 243 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of time bound promotions and the requirement of counting of past service. The Court held in the judgment that seniority and time bound promotions were different concepts and the past service by an employee was required to be counted for the limited purposes of eligibility for computing the number of years of qualifying service to enable them to claim the higher grade under the scheme of time bound promotions. On said reasoning, Hon'ble the Supreme Court said that appellants were entitled to higher grade from the date they completed 16 years of service by taking into account the past service in the Rehabilitation Department along with the service in the P&T Department. IV. Reckoning of past service shall be governed by particular terms of employment. 4.All the decisions which referred to the counting of past service in one department or another department would have to be seen to be confined to situations where the rules or instructions provide for computation of years of service in the first organization. In the present case, it is seen that in the proceedings of the Under Secretary, Education for Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Education Department under reference No. 23/11/87-Edu.I dated 215.2.1992 on the subject of taking over of Shri Krishna College by the Government, it has been specifically stated under Clause (4) that the staff of Shri Krishna College will be considered in Government service from the took over date only and seniority will be fixed in accordance with the rules Civil Writ Petition No.8901 OF 2007 (4) only but there will be no change in the inter se seniority in the college. It will, therefore, be seen that the actual inter se seniority of the Lecturers was protected and the regularization in service was made subject to the approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission and that further the staff was entitled to be considered under the Government service only from 25.1.1992 when the take over of the college was made. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner has nowhere challenged the proceedings of the Government referred to above. It is further seen that the Additional Director (Administration)-cum- Joint Director Colleges has stated that the first A.C.P. In the scale of Rs. 5000-7850/- had been granted to the petitioner only from 1.7.2002 after completion of 10 years of regular satisfactory service and that proceedings has also been issued only on the basis that the 10 years period would be counted only from the date when private college was taken over by the Government. V. The disposition 5.The petitioner cannot have the relief more than what is provided in the terms and conditions of the take over by the Government and it cannot be a rule of thumb that in all cases, the past service will have to be taken account. Each case will have to be decided on its own merit by due consideration of the relevant rules or instructions governing their induction into the new service and in the case before us, the petitioner has been absorbed as a staff of the Government college only as a fresh entrant in the Government service from the date of take over by the Government. The proceedings impugned in the writ petition accords with law and the writ petition is totally misconceived. 6.The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (K.KANNAN) JUDGE JUDGE December 09 , 2008 PARAMJIT