MOOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was in ad hoc service as Stenotypist from 03.08.1974 on a pay scale of Rs. 110 -225 were terminated on 20.11.1979 on the appointment of permanent stenotypist. At that relevant time, he was in a pay scale of 400 -660 and drawing a salary of Rs. 478 + Rs. 25 as a special pay. In a subsequent recruitment that came about, the petitioner was appointed on 06.03.1980 and the issue was the initial pay that he was entitled to. He was put on a scale of Rs. 400 -660 and started at Rs. 400, while the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to be started on an initial pay of Rs. 478 + Rs. 25 as already obtained by him during his ad hoc service. The counsel would refer to Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as governing the situation. Rule 4.4(a) refers to a person, who holds lien on a permanent post and, therefore, irrelevant for us. Rule 4.4 (b) is what is relevant and, therefore, reproduced as follows: -

(2.) THE Government had issued a circular on 11.06.1974 to all its departments making a clarification with reference to pay and grant of increments to ad hoc employees. The matter of relevance obtains through what is stated in paragraphs 2 and 3.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reading of Rule 4.4.(b) would make it clear that when the petitioner was subsequently appointed and made permanent in the same time scale, he shall be entitled to be paid the same initial pay which he was paid in the ad hoc post. The counsel would also urge that in terms of the clarification, if the ad hoc post had been regularized and he held a regular post than he shall be entitled to be paid the salary drawn in the ad hoc post before he was appointed to the substantive post. The learned counsel would also refer me to two decisions of this Court in Jai Pal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) SCT 527, that dealt with right of a consideration of the benefit of ad hoc service towards fixation of pay despite break in service where the Court held that he would be entitled to such benefit. Yet another decision was Dharampal Singh v. The State of Haryana and another in CWP No. 10161 of 1988, decided on 21.03.1989, where the Bench without any elaboration of facts stated cryptically that ad hoc service would be counted for the purpose of grant of increment.