LPA No. 191 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.191 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 30 .3.2011 Budh Ram and others ... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the appellants 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgement dated 16.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single by the unsuccessful appellants is 'whether the period of adhoc service rendered by an employee could be counted for grant of additional increment under Rule 5 of the Haryana Government Employees (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for brevity 'the Rules')'. The learned Single Judge has found that the increment paid to the appellants by counting their adhoc service on completion of 8/18 years of service have been rightly withdrawn by order dated 6.2.2008 (P.14) but has set aside the demand made by the respondents to recover the overpayment made. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another (2008) 8 SCC 4. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the service rendered either on adhoc LPA No. 191 of 2011 2 or stop gap arrangement cannot be regarded as regular service for securing the benefit of revised scale of pay or selection grade. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others 2002(4) SCT 432 and concluded as under: “ Therefore, it stands concluded that the ad hoc service, rendered by the petitioners, is not liable to be reckoned towards total length of service, for the purpose of receiving the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.” The learned Single Judge, however set aside the order of recovery by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram v. State of Haryana and others 2009(3) SCT 333. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge which is based on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association's case (supra). It iss well settled principle of law that work charge or adhoc service would not qualify for reckoning the period of 8/18 years as contemplated by Rule 5 of the rules for grant of additional increment. On the aforesaid basis the order refixing the pay has been upheld by the learned Single Judge.The same view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singhand others (2002)10 SCC 674; State of Punjab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and others (2008)12 SCC 572 and PSEB and others v. Jagjivan Ram and others (2009)3 SCC 661. We are further of the view that the respondents released the benefit of additional increment by reckoning the period of service rendered LPA No. 191 of 2011 3 on adhoc basis for the purpose of granting the benefit of increment after 8/18 years of service erroneously and without any mis-representation on the part of the appellants. The aforesaid recovery has been rightly quashed by following the judgement of Full Bench in Budh Ram's case (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be upheld. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed and view taken by the learned Single Judge is upheld. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 30.3.2011 Judge okg