Madhu Jaidka and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondents to take into consideration the adhoc service rendered by the petitioners before regularisation for reckoning the period of 8 and 18 years for the grant of senior scale/special scale in view of Govt. notification dated 17.2.1989 (Annexure P-2) and for the grant of proficiency step up increments in view of the Punjab Government instructions dated 1.12.1988 (Annexure P-3). The defence taken by the State is that the petitioners are not entitled for senior/selection scale after 8/18 years of service from the date of their adhoc appointment and the benefit of the proficiency step up increments is to be given from the date of appointment on regular basis.

This Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2028 of 1995-Manmohan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 19.10.2012 has held as under:-

The State, in its written statement, has averred that the Punjab Government, vide its circular letter No. 7/14/88-5PP1/16200 dated 01.09.1989 had clarified that whether period of 8 or 18 years for the purpose to grant proficiency step-up is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis. The services rendered on ad hoc basis was not to be counted for the purpose of grant of proficiency step-up. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Ishar Singh and Others, and in th State of Punjab and Others Vs. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and Others, while placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Veternaty and A.H.T.S. Asson. and Another, it has been held that ad hoc services cannot be considered for fixation of seniority.

Recently, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and Others, has held that benefit of time-bound promotion and increments prior to the completion of regular service was mandatory condition for the grant of time-bound promotion of the time scale. The services rendered as temporary, ad hoc or work-charge cannot be counted for the benefit of time-bound promotion. A Division Bench of this Court in Damara Venkata Murali Krishna Rao Vs. Gurujupalli Satvathamma, has also held that the period of 8/18 years of service for the purpose of granting benefit of assured career progression scheme is to be counted after the regularisation of the ad hoc services.

Keeping in view the settled principles enumerated above, the present writ petition is bereft of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

The present writ petition is squarely covered by the above said observations. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.