, J.

1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 16.9.2003, Annexure P.5, rejecting claim of the employees represented by the petitioner

Union for counting workcharge service for the purpose of granting proficiency step up on completion of 8/18 years of service.

2. Case of the petitioner is that it is a Union of employees. The employees initially joined on work charge basis but their services were later regularised. The Third Pay Commission recommended proficiency step up, which recommendation was accepted and instructions dated 1.12.1988, Annexure P.2 were issued by the State of Punjab to the effect that one additional increment will be paid on completion of 8 and 18 years of service in the form of proficiency step up to all employees. For the said purpose, work and conduct of the employees will be assessed by the same procedure as applied to promotion and if the employee was found suitable, the increment will be given. For this purpose, entire service in time scale, Senior Scale and Selection scale shall be counted Vide letter dated 1.9.1989, Annexure P.3, it was clarified that the period of 8/18 years is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis and service rendered on ad hoc basis is not to be counted for the purpose.

3. The members of the petitioner - Union filed CWP No. 10621 of 2003 with a prayer for counting work charge service as regular service and vide order dated 15.7.2003, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide legal notice of the petitioner by speaking order. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.9.2003, Annexure P.5, legal notice of the employees was decided and prayer was declined on the basis of instructions dated 29.10.1991, Annexure P. 6 to the effect that work charge service could not be counted as regular service, in view of earlier instructions dated 1.9.1989, Annexure P. 3.

4. Contention raised in the petition is that the view taken by the department was against judgment of the Honble Supreme Court dated 31.10.2000 in 2008(8) SLT 203, State of Haryana and others v. Ravinder Kumar and others. Annexure P. 8, judgments of this Court dated 13.9.2000 in CWP No. 5738 of 1999, Kesar Singh v. State of Punjab and others., Annexure P.7, dated 19.4.2001 in CWP No. 5550 of 1998, Sardara Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and others., Annexure P. 9, dated 15.11.2002 in CWP No. 17315 of 2001, Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others., Annexure P. 10 and dated 27.7.2004 in CWP No. 6288 of 2003, Som Nath and others v. State of Punjab. and others, Annexure P.11.

5. In the reply filed, it has been stated that against judgment of this Court dated 25.6.2005 in CWP No. 15007 of 2003, Kuldip Singh and others v. State of Punjab. and others, SLP (Civil) No. 23439 of 2005 has been filed in the Honble Supreme Court and ngtice has been issued and, therefore, the matter may be adjourned.

On 12.3.2007, following order was passed : "Learned counsel for the parties states that the Division Bench judgment of this Court Annexure P.11, on which reliance has been placed, is under challenge before Honble the Supreme Court in SLP and the matter is posted for hearing on 15.3.2007.

To come up on 30.3.2007". Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a copy of order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 20.9.2007 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1018-1020 of 2001 State of Punjab and others v. Onkar Singh and others. The said matter was considered by the Honble Supreme Court against judgment of this Court, holding that work charge service was required to be counted for proficiency step up. Reference was made to earlier judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and another, (2000) 8 SCC 4 : [2000(5) SLR 223 (SC)]., taking the view that only regular substantive service of an employee could be Counted for proficiency step up and not ad hoc service. The said view was reiterated vide order dated 20.22001 in SLP (C) Nos. 5090 of 1999