IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 6885 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 9, 2009 GURDEV SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS PUNJAB GOVERNMENT & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners on adhoc/temporary basis for the purposes of fixation of their pay in the revised scale of pay, after counting adhoc/temporary service from the date of their initial appointment. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioners joined Civil Writ Petition No. 6885 of 1990 2 the service of the respondents, as per details given in para-2 of the petition. Their services were regularised on subsequent dates. It has been pleaded that the benefit of service rendered on adhoc/temporary basis has not been given while fixing their pay. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the relief could be granted to the petitioners only in accordance with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others, JT 2001 (5) SC 57. The relief in those terms has been given. In Gurdeep Kumar Uppal's case (supra), the following has been held (in paras 4 and 6):- “4. The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals in whether the period of ad hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for calculating the period of 8 or 18 years of service for giving higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme. This question was considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Another (JT 2000(10) SC 561) wherein this Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad hoc service.” “6. We do not feel it necessary to delve further into merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary AHTS Association and Another (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the cases in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/orders passed by the High Court holding that ad hoc service is to be included in calculating the Civil Writ Petition No. 6885 of 1990 3 period of service for giving the higher scale of pay are unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgments/orders of the High Court under challenge are set aside.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that relief in terms of law laid down in the judgment in Gurdeep Kumar Uppal's case (supra) has already been given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited any judgment to show law otherwise. The facts asserted on behalf of the respondents have not been controverted. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The the petition is dismissed. November 9, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?