IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 Date of decision: 14.05.2026 Narian Dutt Kaushal and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 23.04.2001 (Annexure P-3), whereby the claim of the petitioners for counting their adhoc service for the purpose of grant of proficiency step up increments, senior/selection grade and seniority, has been rejected and the benefits already granted to them have been withdrawn.

2. Learned State counsel submits that the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners is not countable for the grant of proficiency step up. In support of the said contention, he has produced copy of the judgment dated 17.12.2024, passed in CWP No.28652 of 2019 titled as 'R.D. Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others', wherein similar issue has been considered and it has been held as under:-

“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

8. The only issue in the present petition is as to whether the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners can be counted for grant of ACP benefit.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

10. The issue in hand is not res integra as it has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association (supra) wherein a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Singla’s case (majority view) has been overruled by holding that only the regular service can be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade. The said judgment has been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjiwan Ram’s case (supra), wherein after considering various judgments, it has been held as under: -

“10. The ratio of the above mentioned judgments is that work charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of employees much less regular employees and further that the work charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules or policy framed by the employer.

11. What to say of work charged employees even those appointed on ad hoc basis cannot claim parity with regular employees in the matter of pay fixation, grant of higher scales of pay, promotion etc. In State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another (supra), a three-Judge Bench considered the question whether service of an employee appointed on adhoc basis can be equated with that of regular employee for the purpose of grant of selection grade in terms of the policy contained in circulars dated 2nd June, 1989 and 16^th May, 1990 issued by the Government of Haryana and answered the same in negative. The facts of that case were that one Rakesh Kumar Singla who joined service as Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis on 4.1.1980 was appointed on regular basis with effect from 29.8.1982 after selection by the Public Service Commission. He represented to the Government for grant of selection grade on completion of 12 years service commencing from 4.1.1980. As the Government did not accede to his request,Rakesh Kumar Singla filed writ petition in the High Court. On a reference made by the Division Bench, the matter was placed before a bench of three-Judges. By majority judgment, the larger bench held that the service rendered by an employee on the basis of adhoc appointment must be clubbed with his regular service for the purpose of grant of selection grade in terms of the policy framed by the State Government. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and held :

"Coming to the circular dated 2-6-1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, it appears that the aforesaid circular had been i