JAI PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tsis order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing Nos. 10461 of 1992, 'Jai Pal Singh V/s. State of Haryana & Ors.' and 10462 of 1992, 'Dharam pal V/s. State of Haryana & Ors.' as common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitionis. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 10461 of 1992, 'Jai Pal Singh V/s. State of Haryana & Ors.'

(2.) Petitioner, Jai Pal Singh seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated May 4, 1992 (Annexure P-7) vide which the annual increments earlier granted to him were withdrawn by holding that the benefit of adhoc service from February 19,1980 to February 18,1982 towards regular service was given wrongly to him. In wake of the aforesaid finding, it was further ordered that the amount paid to him be recovered.

(3.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Vaidya (Ayurvedic Medical Officer) on temporary basis on the recommendation of the Employment Exchange by the Director, Ayurveda Haryana Chandigarh. He joined the post aforesaid on 12th/13th February, 1980. Thereafter the posts were advertised by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board for making regular appointments. Petitioner applied alongwith others and was duly selected by the said Board. His name was, thus, sponsored by the Board for regular appointment. He joined on regular basis on April 26, 1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-30-850-900-40-1100-EB-50-1400/- plus two advance increments and 25% non-practising allowance. He made a representation to the respondents for grant of annual increments in lieu of his service rendered by him on the post as provided under Rule 4.4(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.1, Part 1. His claim was considered and accepted by the respondents and he was given the benefit of temporary service towards increments only. This was done vide orders dated April 12, 1984 (Annexure P-3). However, in April, 1989, he received communication from the District Ayurvedic Officer, Gurgaon to the effect that he should intimate as to how much arrears have been drawn by him on adhoc basis and on what basis the said benefit was granted to him as the Government desired to make recovery of the said benefits. On the receipt of letter aforesaid, petitioner sent a detailed reply by specifically adverting the attention of respondents to the provisions contained in Rule 4.4(b) of the PSCR, Vol. I, Part I as also the instructions dated June 11,1974 which, inter-alia, provide that on adhoc appointee shall be treated as temporary appointee for the purposes of Rule 4.4(b) of the Rules aforesaid. Irrespective of the reply aforesaid order dated March 31,1990 was passed the conveyed to petitioner whereby the benefit of annual increments was withdrawn. His pay, thus, stood reduced considerably a part from the recovery that was to be made from him. This order was challenged in this Court, and the following order was passed: -