SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the meaning of the expression, "regular satisfactory service" appearing in Rule 5(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, is the precise question which arises for consideration before the Court in this bunch of 144 writ petitions. The petitioners claim a common relief of grant of first and second ACP scales respectively, depending upon the years of service rendered by them in terms of the Rules, which has been denied to them by the State basically on the ground that the service rendered by them on work charge basis cannot be counted as regular satisfactory service within the meaning and scope of Rule 5 of the Rules. Thus, all these writ petitions raised a common question founded on somewhat similar facts with reference to interpretation of one and the same Rules. Therefore, we would dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment, however, for the purposes of brevity and clarity, we would be referring to the facts of three writ petitions being CWP Nos. 12497 and 16315 of 2002 and 14400 of 2001.

(2.) There are 15 petitioners each in CWP Nos. 12497 and 16315 of 2002 while there are 41 petitioners in CWP No. 14400 of 2001. Out of 41 petitioners in CWP No. 14400 of 2001, 37 were appointed as Electricians in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, B&R Department, Haryana, Electrical Division, Rohtak, during the period 1960 to 1983 and their services were regularised by the respondents on different dates during the period 1978 to 1983, while petitioners No. 37 to 41 are working as Electricians in the same Department, but in the National Highway Division, Rohtak. Their period of appointment and confirmation both fall during the same period as noticed above. Since regularisation of their service in their respective departments the petitioners are continuing to work in that capacity. According to the petitioners, the Government has granted the respective pay scales to them on the basis of their qualifications. Those of the petitioner who were Matric with I.T.I. Diploma, were granted the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- which was subsequently revised as Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and those who were non-I.T.I. diploma holders, were granted pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-, which was revised to the new grade of Rs. 3050-4590/-. The Government of Haryana had framed certain policies in relation to grant of additional increments upon rendering 8 and 18 years of satisfactory service. This policy of the State of Haryana was declared in the year 1996. In furtherance to its declared policy Annexure P/1 to the writ petition, the employees of Group 'C' and 'D' were entitled to receive additional increment after 8 and 18 years service in terms of the policy which was made effective from 1.7.1992. The policy decisions of the Government of providing these increments at two different stages were done away after coming into force of the Rules which were made effective with effect from 1.1.1996. Under these ACP Rules an employee was entitled to receive first and second ACP scale of pay subject to the satisfaction of the requirements stated under the Rules. Under Rule 19 of these Rules, the Rules were given overriding effect. According to the petitioners, they fully satisfy the conditions postulated under Rules 4 and 5 of these Rules and are entitled to the ACP higher scales on completion of 8/18 years and 10/20 years of service in terms of the instructions issued by the Government dated 17.8.1992 Annexure P/1 to the writ petition with effect from 1.7.1992 as granted by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ravinder Kumar and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6740-6741 of 1997, decided on 31.10.2000, Annexure P/3 to the writ petition. We may notice that in this case and in other similar cases like this, there is no reference and pleading in regard to the Rules of 1998.

(3.) In CWP No. 12497 of 2002 there are 15 petitioners and they were appointed on work charge basis under the Executive Engineer, Public Health, Division No. 1, Faridabad. The details of their appointment, regularisation and the designation as given in the petition are as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_151_LAWS(P&H)7_2004(1).html</FRM>