STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 19.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner- respondent is entitled to reckon adhoc service as qualifying service for the purposes of pensionary benefits. The other relief granted by the learned Single Judge is that on the completion of 8/18 years of service she would be entitled to the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme by counting the period of adhoc service and her salary be re-fixed accordingly.

(2.) Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State Counsel has challenged the second relief granting ACP benefits to writ petitioner-respondent by counting her adhoc service. According to the learned counsel the benefit of ACP cannot be granted to her as her claim is not covered by the statutory rules and clarifications issued from time to time by various circulars/instructions. The controversy which has been raised in the instant appeal is covered by clarification No. 6 issued by the State Government on 1.9.1989 (P.3) which says that the period of eight or eighteen years is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis and the service rendered on adhoc basis is not to be counted for the purpose of grant of proficiency stepup(s).

(3.) Mr. Mehar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner respondent, however, has argued that if the benefit of adhoc service is extended by making addition to qualifying service for the purposes of pension then there is no reason to deny the same for the purpose of grant of ACP grade/proficiency step-up(s). According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has committed no error of law by granting the benefit of adhoc service for the purposes of counting 8 and 18 years of service.