RAVINDER SINGH NANDAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 27/4/2015 (Annexure P-9), passed by respondent No.2, vide which the condition No.4 of the order dtd. 26/9/2013, by which the petitioners were engaged as the Agricultural Development Officers, has been modified with regard to the grant of emoluments.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.l and 2 retired as Block Agriculture Officers from the Department of Agriculture, State of Haryana, on 31/5/2013 and 28/2/2011, respectively. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-Department issued an advertisement on 14/6/2013 for re-engagement of the retired Block Agriculture Officers in the Department of Agriculture as Agriculture Development Officer (Soil Conservation). As both the petitioners were eligible for the said post, keeping in view the eligibility conditions mentioned in the said advertisement, therefore, they applied for the said postand underwent the selection process and were ultimately recommended vide order dtd. 26/9/2013 to be engaged as Agriculture Development Officers (Soil Conservation) for a period of twelve months on the terms and conditions mentioned therein or till the regular candidates join.

(3.) A bare perusal of Clause No.4 of the terms and conditions of the letter dtd. 26/9/2013, on the basis of which the petitioners were appointed, shows that the remunerations shall be calculated as per the Government rules, i.e. the difference between the last pay drawn (Basic Pay+D.A.) and the amount of monthly pension. The said condition being acceptable to the petitioners, they joined the service keeping in view the terms and conditions offered as per the letter dtd. 26/9/2013. After expiry of one year, the petitioners were granted extension for a period of six months on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the letter dtd. 26/9/2013. As there was no change in the said terms and conditions, the petitioners accepted their extensions of service and further discharged their duties for another six months. After the period of six months came to an end, again vide order dtd. 29/5/2015, the petitioners were granted six months extension on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the offer of appointment dtd. 26/9/2013. Thereafter, the petitioners continued working as such. Ultimately, keeping in view the extensions being granted to them on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the offer of appointment dtd. 26/9/2013, the tenure of petitioner No. 1 and 2 came to an end on 30/11/2015 and 30/7/2016, respectively.