GIR RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitions are connected and they are taken for common disposal. The narration of facts is taken from CWP No.9656 of 2003. The writ petition is to quash the order dated 17.06.2003 under which the claim to additional increments granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 02.04.1979 and the grant of higher standard pay scales were sought to be withdrawn by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent-the District Education Officer. The impugned order came to be passed on a finding that the increments and the higher pay scales granted were under wrong interpretation of the relevant ACP rules and hence, they were quashed and recovery has been ordered. The challenge in the writ petition was on a contention that the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) Rules, 1980 had been correctly applied and the competent authority had given the benefit of additional increments w.e.f. 02.04.1979 under Rule 7 of the 1980 Rules under which the pay of the employees at lower stage, that is, at Rs. 110/- was revised at Rs. 410/- under the Rules. The petitioners would bring the circumstance that the benefit given was sought to be withdrawn nearly 23 years of service on a specious ground that the respective petitioners were regularized only w.e.f. 01.01.1980 and the additional increments had been given when they were only ad hoc employees. The petitioners would refer to the parity of position obtaining through several decisions rendered by this Court for other employees where the twin consideration of entitlement to additional increments and higher standard pay by counting the ad hoc service as per the instructions for grant of ACP scales had been favourably considered for other persons.

(2.) The petitioners would rely on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Vijay Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2409 of 2008, decided on 18.12.2008 to which, I was a member where the point raised was whether the period held under ad hoc appointments should be counted for reckoning seniority for promotion to the post of lecturers. The said judgment has been considered with reference to a judgment of this Court in Hanumant Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2008 4 SCT 427 in CWP No.7862 of 2006, decided on 04.07.2008, reported in where the ad hoc service followed by regular service was taken to be relevant for the purpose of grant of additional increments, pension and seniority. I will not find that this judgment would conclude the issue, for, the point raised in that case was with reference to the relevance of ad hoc appointment for reckoning of seniority. If there was ever a reference to a decision of this Court in Hanumant Singh , it was in the context of the relevance of ad hoc service for grant of additional increments which would be applicable in this case if only rules provided for such consideration. The question of whether ad hoc service would be counted for additional increments cannot be stated to be a general proposition available in situations in all establishments. There are two strands of authorities of which is one holding that ad hoc service would be relevant for additional increments (Ram Singh Versus Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana,1996 5 SLR 285; Surender Singh Versus State of Haryana,1997 5 SLR 697; and another holding otherwise (Badal Singh Versus State of Haryana, 2006 6 SLR 379; Baljeet Kaur Versus State of Punjab, 2003 2 LLN 127; Naresh Kumar Versus Haryana State Co- operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.,2002 2 LLN 660. The dichotomy is only due to the variance in the respective rules governing the conditions of service. The most crucial issue would, therefore, be to examine the rules that provide for additional increments and the criteria to be applied therefor.

(3.) The petitioners cite before me the decision in Shri Dher Sharma and others Versus State of Haryana and others in CWP NO.1219 of 1995, decided on 23.07.2013 where this Court (Justice Mahesh Grover) had relied on Hanumant Singh and State of Haryana Versus Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association, 2000 4 SCT 664 among other decisions to hold that the petitioners would be entitled to one additional increment. The prayer for grant of higher pay scales had been, however, negatived. In Surender Singh and others Versus The State of Haryana and others in CWP No.7897 of 1995, decided on 02.09.2013, the judgment had been delivered by reference to Hanumant Singh and others providing for a similar relief. In Vinod Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others in CWP No.2866 of 2009, decided on 12.03.2013, this Court (Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) held that the benefit of annual increment would be given also to persons, who had served in a post on 89 days basis, but without break prior to the date of regularization.