KESHO RAM GOEL Vs. DHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is that his claim for the grant of time scale in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer after a period of 12 years of service by computing the same from 07.01.1988, has been declined on the ground that the ad-hoc service cannot be taken into account for the grant of the time scale after rendering 12 years of service as only regular service can be taken into account for the said purpose. The orders dated 03.05.2013 and 10.06.2013 (Annexure P-11 and P-12) respectively are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) As per the facts stated in the writ petition, petitioner was appointed as a Line Superintendent on 03.06.1966 in Punjab State Electricity Board as at that time, it was Punjab State Electricity Board. After the bifurcation, petitioner was allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board in November, 1966. On 20.05.1980, petitioner was promoted as a Junior Engineer. He continued working as such when vide order dated 07.01.1988 petitioner alongwith others were promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer/Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis but with regular pay scale. Petitioner continued working as such when his services were regularized as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 10.08.1990.

(3.) Under the rules governing the service, an Assistant Engineer was entitled for the grant of time scale, which has higher than the initial entry scale, after a period of 12 years of service. Petitioner claims that he completed 12 years service as Assistant Engineer on 07.01.2000 and, therefore, he was entitled for the benefit of time scale from 07.01.2000 onwards. The said request of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents on the ground that the ad-hoc service, which the petitioner had rendered in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer starting from 07.01.1988 till 10.08.1990 cannot be taken into consideration and as only the regular service has to be taken into consideration and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit and by the time, petitioner completes 12 years of service starting from 10.08.1990, he had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012. Hence, the claim of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents.