Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Arjun Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-35222 of 2019
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Key Points: - Only regular service after regularization counts towards additional increments under the ACPS; pre-regularization daily wage service is not counted (!) (!) . - Rule 4.8 explicitly excludes ad-hoc service from reckoning for ACP benefits (!) . - Proficiency step up is not admissible to work charge/daily wage employees on completion of 8/18 years of service (!) (!) . - Previous judgments allowing counting of ad-hoc service were overruled by subsequent rule amendments (!) (!) . - Writ petitions dismissed for lack of merit as amended rules were upheld (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for quashing orders regarding service increments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court analysis of legal rules governing service increments. (Para 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments about eligibility for counting previous service. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial precedents affecting service calculation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral)
Three connected writ petitions have come up for final disposal. The learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the issues which require adjudication are common and hence, these petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. For brevity, the relevant facts are being noticed from CWP-35222-2019.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners pray for the following substantive reliefs:-
3. The petitioners were initially enrolled as the daily wage employees. Their services were regularized between 2009-2011. Now, they are praying for counting the period rendered by them as daily wagers towards the additional increments under the Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the "ACPS") etc. On notice, the respondent-State while contesting the case has submitted that for the purpose of benefit of ACPs, only the period after regularization is required to be counted in view of the amendment in Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I, Rule 4.8.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioners while referring to the judgment passed in Hanumant Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2008(4) SCT 427, State of Haryana v. Ravinder Kumar and others, Civil Appeal No.5740-5741 of 1997, decided on 31.10.2000, Banta Ram Pump Operator and others v. State of Punjab, CWP-18429-1996, decided on 06.02.1997, Kesar Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP-5738-1999 , decided on 13.09.2000, Puran Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-219-2003, decided on 13.11.2003 and Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Punjab and another v. President, Sh. Natha Singh Thein Dam Workers Union and another, CWP-20422-2005, decided on 09.05.2006, submits that the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for and the impugned orders passed by the authorities are liable to be set aside due to arbitrariness.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents while drawing the attention of the Court to amended Rule 4.8 of the PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES , submits that only regular service is required to be counted for the benefit of fixation of pay under the ACPs as notified by the Government from time to time. He submits that in absence of any challenge to the aforesaid Rules, the petitioners have no substance in the case.
7. This Court has considered the submissions and analysed the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties.
8. At the first instance, it is important to take note of the amendment in Rule 4.8 of Volume I, Part I of Punjab Civil Service Rules, which is extracted as under:-
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 1....
Ad-hoc service must be counted retroactively for Selection Grades and ACP benefits, reflecting established judicial precedents that recognize continuous service, reaffirming the principle of financia....
Services rendered as a daily wager employee cannot be counted for pension/quantum of pension, but after regularization, the employee cannot be denied pension for not completing the qualifying service....
Promotion – Appellants shall be entitled to have their services in work-charged establishment counted as qualifying service for Proficiency Step-up(s) in accordance with Proficiency Step-up Scheme.
Ad hoc service followed by regularization counts as qualifying service for pension and gratuity under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 13, preventing discriminatory exclusion of prior service.
The court held that ad-hoc service cannot be counted as qualifying for pension benefits under the New Pension Scheme, as the initial appointments were not made per the relevant rules.
Regularization of daily wagers cannot be denied on grounds of artificial breaks in service, as prior rulings establish entitlements based on completed service duration, irrespective of work charge es....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
