Service rendered on work-charge basis prior to regularization of an employee is not to be counted for the purpose of grant of benefits like increment of proficiency step-up upon completion of 8 and 18 years of service unless the rules/policies of the State specifically permit for the same.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The petitioners, who are employees of Department of Irrigation, Punjab, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to count the service rendered by them on work-charge basis, prior to their regularization, for the purpose of determination of total length of service required for granting increments of proficiency step-up upon completion of 8 and 18 years of service.

2. The petitioners had joined the Department of Irrigation between the years 1979 to 1988 on work-charge basis. Subsequently, during the years 1989 to 2008, their services were regularized in accordance with prevalent policies/instructions issued by the State of Punjab. The petitioners, however, claim that the period of service rendered by them prior to their regularization, which would be around 10 years approximately, be also counted in their length of service for the purpose of granting increments of proficiency step-up upon completion of 8 and 18 years of service.

3. The learned counsel, while pressing upon the case of the petitioners to the effect that service rendered on work-charge basis is to be considered for the purpose of extending benefits of additional increments towards proficiency step-up placed reliance upon the following judgments :-

(i) Judgment dated 6.1.1997 passed by this Court in CWP 18429 of 1996 - Banta Ram Pump Operator vs. State of Punjab. (Annexure P3)

(ii) Judgment dated 13.9.2000 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5738 of 1999 - Kesar Singh versus State of Punjab. (Annexure P-5)

(iii) Order dated 1.2.2002 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6498/2001 - State of Punjab Versus Kesar Singh Chowkidar. (Annexure P-6)

(iv) Judgment dated 13.11.2003 passed by this Court in CWP 219 of 2003 - Puran Singh and others vs. State of Punjab. (Annexure P-7)

(v) Order dated 31.10.2000 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5740-5741/1997 - State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ravinder Kumar & others. (Annexure P-4)

(vi) 2015(2) SLR 610 - State of Haryana and others versus Inderjit and other.(Pb. & Hr.)

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the petition on the ground that the rules and policies applicable do not permit that the service rendered on work-charge basis by an employee prior to regularization is to be treated for all kinds of benefits and that it is only under certain circumstances that the same may be treated as qualifying service for pensionary benefits only. It has been submitted that instructions dated 1.12.1988 (Annexure P-1) read with clarificatory letter dated 1.9.1989 (Annexure P-2) clearly prescribe that service rendered on ad-hoc basis is not to be reckoned for the purpose of granting increments towards proficiency step-up/ACP.

5. It has further been submitted that in case ad-hoc/work-charge service rendered prior to regularisation is permitted to be counted, it would have very wide ramifications inasmuch as persons who may have been directly appointed on regular basis prior to regularisation of employees initially appointed on ad-hoc basis, would end up drawing lesser pay whereas the petitioners who came to be regularized much later will be getting higher pay on the basis of ad-hoc service. The learned State counsel, in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submission places reliance upon the following four judgments:-

(i) AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2691, State of Punjab versus Gurdeep Kumar Uppal.

(ii) 2009(5) SLR 499 - Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others (Supreme Court)

(iii) 2010 (12) SCC 400 - Surendra Nath Pandey & others Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank Limited & another : Docid # IndiaLawLib/263967

(iv) 2013 (16) SCC 677 - State of Haryana and others Vs. Sita Ram and others : Docid # IndiaLawLib/257888

(v) 2008(5) SLR 684 - The Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union versus The State of Punjab and others.

(vi) 2015(25) SCT 712 - Amarjit Singh Saini vs. State of Punjab(Pb. & Hr)

(vii) Ord