SUBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by way of present petition is seeking quashing of order dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure P-8) and direction to the respondents' authorities to count the service from 22.02.1973 to 28.12.1978 for the purpose of ACP benefits and to grant 3rd ACP benefits along with interest. Petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher (Men) through Subordinate Service Selection Board Haryana on 22.02.1973 as per Rules. Petitioner had participated in the interview as per the interview letter dated 16.04.1971 (Annexure P-1). The services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 29.12.1978 (Annexure P-2). The ACP Rules as applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to the employees of the State of Haryana and according to the said Rules, the employees who had completed 10 years of regular service shall be granted 1st ACP and employees who had completed 20 years of service shall be entitled for 2 nd ACP. Similarly, the employees who have completed 30 years of service shall be entitled for 3rd ACP as per rules (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was granted 1 st ACP by considering the regular service w.e.f. 29.12.1978 and 2 nd ACP after completing 20 years. The petitioner in the present case is claiming that his service w.e.f. 22.02.1973 till 28.12.1978 be counted as qualified service for the purpose of grant of ACP and in this manner he will be entitled for 3 rd ACP after completing of 30 years of regular service. A representation in this regard was made by the petitioner on 20.08.2013 (Annexure P-5) and legal notice dated 26.3.2014 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner thereafter filed CWP No.9745 of 2014 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure P-7), by giving direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 26.3.2014 (Annexure P-6), within a period of four months. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected, vide order dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that only regular satisfactory service is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of ACP benefits. The date of regularization is 01.01.1980 and his adhoc service w.e.f. 22.2.1973 to 31.12.1979 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose grant of 3 rd ACP. The petitioner has already been retired on 30.09.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation and the claim being highly belated has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent(s) in the written statement has placed on record a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case State of Haryana and others Vs. Sita Ram and others, 2013 16 SCC 677 whereby it has been held that work charged service cannot be clubbed with regular service for the purpose of ACP Rules, 1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case State of Haryana and others Vs. Surindra Kumar Mishra and others,2012 1 RSJ 510 whereby the petitioners had been appointed on the post of lecturers in pursuant to an advertisement. The mode of recruitment was both by way of inviting direct applications as well as through sponsorship by Employment Exchange.