CWP No.7661 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 24.02.2010 Sita Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was selected as Clerk on 14.1.1976 and joined as such in the office of the Haryana Housing Board. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected as Clerk by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana and joined the Agriculture Department, Haryana in April, 1981. His pay was fixed by counting the service period rendered in the Housing Board. The Government issued instructions on 7.8.1992 for grant of additional increments on completion of 8 and 18 years of service to avoid stagnation which were later on replaced by instructions dated 8.2.1994 and the additional increments were ordered to be granted on completion of 10 and 20 years of service. Instructions dated 29.12.1995 (Annexure P-16) were issued for not counting the past service. The petitioner completed 20 years service on 13.1.1996. He made representation dated 28.2.2007 for grant of additional increment on completion of 20 years service. CWP No.7661 of 2009 2 His case was recommended for the said benefit by the Additional Directors, Agriculture Department, Haryana which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-4). Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging Annexures P-4 and P- 16 claiming benefit of additional increments on completion of 20 years service. The respondents in the reply filed, have reiterated the averments made in the impugned orders. The issue raised in the writ petitions is no more res integra. A similar issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Deepak Sood and others, (Civi Appeal No.4446 of 2008) decided on 15.07.2008, wherein the following observations have been made:- “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 any 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 CWP No.7661 of 2009 3 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 ground to interfere in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.” The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present writ petitions. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.10.2007 and 29.12.1995, Annexures P-4 and P-16, respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to ACP benefit by counting service rendered by him in Haryana Housing Board . No costs. 24.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO