LPA No.190 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.190 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.05.2011 Amarjit Singh and others .......Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the appellants. **** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against order dated 22.04.2009 of the learned Single Judge is, whether the service rendered by an employee on ad hoc/work- charged basis would qualify to be counted for the purposes of grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme benefit (for brevity, ‘ACP’). The learned Single Judge, while placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Punjab State Tubewell LPA No.190 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Corporation Workers Union Vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.9192 of 2005 decided on 20.12.2007), has held that the benefit of ad hoc/work-charged service cannot be granted for the purpose of giving ACP grade to the employees. The reliance of the appellant on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others, PLR 1988 Vol.34 page 223, was repelled by the learned Single Judge by observing that the benefit of work-charged/ad hoc service in that case was given only for the purposes of retiral/pensionary benefits. 2. Having heard the learned counsel, perusing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and keeping in view the binding precedent rendered in the case of Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union (supra), we find that the appeal does not merit admission and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3. As a sequel to the discussion made above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 4. In view of the fact that we have dismissed the main appeal on merit, no orders are required to be passed in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 18.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE