BADAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who have been working as Teachers in the Education Department of Haryana have approached this Court for quashing order dated May 28, 2003 (P-5) denying them the benefit of adhoc service for the purposes of counting 8/18 years of service for granting them one additional increment to break their stagnation. The order dated May 28, 2003 (P-5) has been issued in respect of one of the petitioners. Similar orders are stated to have been issued to all of them, withdrawing the benefit which was granted by reckoning adhoc service.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioners have been working on various posts of teachers. They were initially appointed on adhoc basis and their services were regularized w.e.f. specified dates. The following chart would show their date of appointment on adhoc basis and their date of regularization: S. Name of the Teacher Date of Adhoc Date of No. appointment. regularization 1. Badal Singh 20.2.1973 1.1.1979 2. Charan Singh 8.8.1969 1.1.1979 3. Samunder Singh 24.11.1984 30.9.1988 4. Narayan Dutt 14.7.1973 1.11.1978 5. Satyawanti 9.9.1983 1.11.1986 6. Vidya Sagar 14.7.1973 1.1.1980 7. Santosh Arora 20.2.1973 1.1.1980 8. Sukhdev Singh 28.2.1983 1.11.1986 9. Ram Kumar 14.11.1977 16.9.1982 10. Sultan Singh 2.1.1973 1.1.1979 11. Mahavir Singh 1.9.1973 1.1.1980 12. Mahabir Singh 21.12.1981 1.11.1986 13. Hukam Chand 1.1.1970 1.1.1980 14. Jagdish Chander 30.4.1974 1.1.1980 15. Mohinder Singh 8.12.1981 1.11.1986 16. Krishan Chander 1.9.1973 1.1.1980 17. Ramesh Kumar 30.8.1982 1.11.1986 18. Nirmala Ashri 23.2.1973 1.1.1979 19. Wanti Bai 17.1.1972 1.1.1979 20. Zile Singh 1.1.1972 1.1.1979 21. Nirmal Sharma 17.1.1972 1.1.1979 22. Rajender Singh 4.8.1981 1.11.1986 23. Bimal Kumari 19.8.1971 1.1.1980 24. Santosh Sharma 7.9.1972 1.1.1979

(3.) On May 14, 1991, the respondents State decided to grant one additional increment on completion of 10 years and another additional increment on completion of 20 years in time scale to all Group 'C' and 'D' employees. However, on August 7, 1992, the aforementioned scheme was modified which allowed additional increments to the employees of Group 'C' and 'D' on completion of 8/18 years of regular and satisfactory service (P-2). On account of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singla v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 (3) PLR 411, another set of instructions was issued on August 20, 1996 clarifying that adhoc service which was followed by a regular appointment was to be taken into consideration while reckoning the prescribed length of service of 8 and 18 years (P-3). The Full Bench judgment in Rakesh Kumar Singla's case (supra) was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association . As a consequence, another letter was issued on March 15, 2002 (P-4) by concluding that the adhoc service was not to be counted towards regular service for the purpose of calculation of prescribed length of service for grant of additional increment for completion of 8/18 years of service under the Scheme. The relevant para of the instructions issued by the respondents reads as under: