VIRENDRA SINGH MALHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4429, 13254, 8891 of 2020 and 14925 of 2019. Petitioners in all these writ petitions seek benefit of adhoc service rendered by them towards seniority with all consequential/monetary benefits. Petitioners also seek refixation of their seniority and revision of seniority list accordingly. Reliance is placed by the petitioners on decision of a coordinate Bench in Dr. Surindra Kumar Mishra and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(1) SCT 428, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.886 of 2011 vide decision dtd. 13/10/2011. Civil Appeal Nos.4420-4424 of 2016 as well as review and curative petitions filed by the State challenging the said decisions have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) Facts in each of the abovementioned writ petitions as are relevant for adjudication of the controversy are briefly narrated as hereunder:-

(3.) CWP No.4429 of 2020, Virendra Singh Malhan and others v. State of Haryana and others was initially filed by ten (10) petitioners while pleading that all the said petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in Government Colleges in the State of Haryana by way of selection qua duly sanctioned posts.Petitioners, it is stated, were initially appointed on adhoc basis through proper and due process of selection after issuance of public notice and advertisement as per applicable statutory service rules. All the ten (10) petitioners except petitioners No.7 and 9 are stated to have joined on adhoc basis between the years 1980 and December, 1986. Petitioners No.7 and 9 were appointed on 25/1/1994 and 27/12/1993, respectively. Services of all the ten (10) petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 31/12/1990 except petitioners No.4, 7, 9 and 10 whose services were regularized in the years 1986, 2000, 1997 and 1989, respectively. Petitioners thus claimed that their adhoc service should be counted towards seniority alongwith all other consequential benefits on the basis of judgment of this Court in Dr. Surindra Kumar Mishra (supra), which had attained finality. Respondents, keeping in view the judicial pronouncements, filed reply wherein benefit of adhoc service to petitioners No.l to 6, 8 and 10 was conceded.