IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 CWP-26941-2014 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.09.2025 Satbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Lekhraj Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Shagun, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the respondents, who are not taking any action on the legal notice dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P-1) in spite of reply dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P-2) qua the claim of the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to count the ad hoc service of the petitioner from 15.12.1983 to 31.03.1993 towards pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity, ACP, increments and pension, etc. along with interest @ 18% per annum. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to grant 2^nd ACP and 3^rd ACP to the petitioner for completion of 20-30 years of service, as has been granted to his counterparts.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 15.12.1983 as Work Mistry/Watchman (now termed as Work Supervisor) on ad hoc basis in a regular pay scale of Rs.350 – 500/-. The petitioner continuously rendered his services in this capacity until 31.03.1993. The conduct and performance of the petitioner during this period was reported to be satisfactory and no disciplinary action or adverse remarks are stated to have been recorded against him. The petitioner’s services were regularised w.e.f. 01.04.1993, and he continued to serve the respondent/Department without any break until his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted the 1^st ACP in the year 2003 upon completion of 10 years of satisfactory service. However, despite completion of 30 years of service by 2013, he was not granted the 2^nd and 3^rd ACPs, which, according to him, was due to inaction and neglect on part of the respondents. It is also the case of the petitioner that his ad hoc service from 15.12.1983 to 31.03.1993, rendered on regular pay scale, was not counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits such as gratuity, increment, and qualifying service towards ACP. The petitioner claims parity with similarly situated co- employees, who were appointed during the same recruitment process and have been granted all such benefits, including 2^nd and 3^rd ACPs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner from 15.12.1983 to 31.03.1993, ought to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary and other service related benefits, especially when the same was followed by regularization without break in service. He submits that the respondents, through reply dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P-2), had acknowledged the petitioner's claim and assured that the matter was under consideration but for more than a decade now, the respondents have failed to take any concrete steps to redress the petitioner’s grievances.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated counterparts of the petitioner have already been granted such benefits, ensuring parity and equality before the law. The petitioner’s claim is supported by binding judicial precedents which recognize that contractual or work-charge service against sanctioned posts, followed by regularisation, must be counted for pensionary and other service benefits. He further contends that the continued inaction on the part of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory, especially when similarly situated employees have already been granted similar relief.

5. Per con