IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5781-CAT of 2011 Date of Decision: July 18, 2011 Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Central Government Counsel, for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The short issue raised in the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is whether the period spent by an employee prior to his regularisation on casual, work-charged or on ad hoc basis could be reckoned for the purposes of grant of seniority, ACP and other attendant benefits. The Union of India and its officers have filed the instant petition challenging order dated 15.3.2010 (P-4) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) directing the petitioners to reckon three years of service from 1985 to 1988, rendered by the applicant-respondent Nos. 2 to 14 as ‘regular C.W.P. No. 5781-CAT of 2011 2 temporary establishment’, for the purposes of granting them the benefits of seniority and ACP etc., within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. It is conceded position that the applicant-respondent Nos. 2 to 14 were initially engaged as Casual Industrial workers on different posts such as Oil Engine Driver, Motor Pump Attendant etc. in the regular pay scale in skilled category in MES on 20.3.1985. They were made permanent in the year 1988 on different dates. They claimed that the period from 1985 to 1988 spent by them as Casual Industrial worker prior to their regular appointment is liable to be counted for the purposes of various service benefits including seniority, grant of ACP and other benefits. In that regard they served a legal notice dated 14.7.2006 to the petitioners. On 19.12.2006, the petitioners sent a reply to the said legal notice and rejected the claim made by the applicant- respondent Nos. 2 to 14. Feeling aggrieved, they approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 144-PB-2008, which has been allowed vide the impugned judgment dated 15.3.2010. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that the applicant-respondent Nos. 2 to 14 are entitled to the benefit of counting the period of service rendered by them as a Casual Industrial Workers from 1985 to 1988. The issue as noticed in the opening para of this judgment is no longer res integra. A similar issue came up for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in C.W.P. No. 5781-CAT of 2011 3 the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and others Punjab State Electricity Board and others Punjab State Electricity Board and others Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. v. v. v. Jagjiwan Ram Jagjiwan Ram Jagjiwan Ram Jagjiwan Ram and others and others and others and others, (2009)3 SCC 661 , (2009)3 SCC 661 , (2009)3 SCC 661 , (2009)3 SCC 661, wherein their Lordships’ in para 21 has held as under: “21. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound promotional scales/ promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years' regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service.” 4. It is obvious that for the purposes of seniority, promotion or some other benefits, the service rendered on work-charge basis, ad hoc basis or daily rate basis could not be counted. However, this principle would not be attracted in a case where the consideration proceeds on different plane i.e. when the question of pension comes. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.3.2010 (P-4) passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant petition succeeds. Order dated 15.3.2010 (P-4) rendered by the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to cost. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) July 1 July 1 July 1 July 18, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor