CWP No.8369 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.05.2010 (1) CWP No.8369 of 2010 Dharambir Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents (2) CWP No.8387 of 2010 Jagbir Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.RS Kundu,Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been supplied to him. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up on board for final disposal. The petitioners joined as Octroi Moharrir (Clerks) in Municipal Committees. In the year 1999, the State of Haryana abolished the Octroi Department and the surplus Octroi Clerks were absorbed in the Co- operative Department of Haryana. On 07.05.2001 the respondent-State CWP No.8369 of 2010 2 clarified that previous service rendered by the petitioners in the Municipal Committee/Council has to be taken into account for the purpose of grant of ACP. Same clarification was issued in the year 2002. The petitioners were eligible for grant of first ACP on the basis of length of service rendered in the Municipal Committees which has not been granted to them. It is this action of the respondents which has been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 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 Employees of the Octroi Branch of the Municipal committee. On consideration of the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Deepak Sood and others, (Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008) decided on 15.07.2008, made the following observations:- “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 CWP No.8369 of 2010 3 pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should 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 petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the period of service rendered by the petitioners in the Municipal Committee for all intents and purposes except the seniority. The claim of the petitioners for ACP and other benefits be determined and paid within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. No costs. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected file. 07.05.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE