RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working on ad hoc basis as an Agriculture Development Officer (Class III) w.e.f. Dec. 13,1978. However, his services were terminated w.e.f. Dec. 16,1980. He filed an appeal-cum-representation against his order of termination and the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, vide order dated Nov. 30,1981, accepted the appeal wherein it has been observed as under:

(2.) In view of the said order, the petitioner was taken back in service and he joined on Feb. 2,1982. The Government of Haryana have been issuing instructions from time to time on regularise the services of the ad hoc employees, who have completed a particular period of ad hoc service upto a particular date. One of such instructions is dated Jan. 19, 1984, which is to the effect that those ad hoc employees who had completed two years service as on Sept. 15, 1982, and were in service on that date may be regularised. Later instructions were issued that those ad hoc employees who had completed two years service on Dec. 31, 1990 and were in service on that date may be considered for regularisation. The petitioners case for regularisation was considered in view of the latter instructions referred to above and was regularised in the year 1994 w.e.f. Jan. 1, 1991. The claim of the petitioner in the present case is that his case should have been considered for regularisation in view of the instructions dated Jan. 19, 1984, as he was in service on Sept. 15,1982, and had completed more than two years of ad hoc service. The contention is that the period between Dec. 16, 1980, and Feb. 2, 1982 (when the petitioner rejoined in pursuance of the order dated Nov. 30, 1981, referred to above) should not be considered as a break in service as is being done by the respondents as that period, according to the order dated Nov. 30, 1981, had to be considered as leave of the kind due. In other words, the whole idea of issuing order dated Nov. 30, 1981, was that the petitioner should be deemed to have continued in service since Dec. 13, 1978, the date of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis. For this purpose, he has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition 645 of 1988, decided on Aug. 9,1988.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that vide order dated Nov. 30, 1981, the petitioner was given fresh appointment on ad hoc basis and the words "intervening period of this official may be treated as leave of the kind due" were added in the order inadvertently.