GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA
No. 6/83/2008-4PR(FD), dated 17th December, 2012
Subject:- Regarding counting of adhoc service towards seniority and ACP scale in the cadre.
I am directed to invite your attention to the subject cited above and to say that on the issue of counting of adhoc service and work charged service towards seniority and the benefit of additional increments on completion of 8/18 years service higher standard pay scale after 10 & 20 years service and for the purpose of ACP scale, the following memorandum/instructions have been issued: -
1. Office Memorandum No. 6/ 16/2001-3PR(FD),dated 15-03-2002
2. Office Memorandum No. 6/ 16/2001-3PR(FD),dated 27-06-2002
3. Office Instruction No. 1/35/2002-1PR(FD),dated 23-04-2003
4. Office Instruction No. 6183/2008-4PR(FD),dated l0/12-06-2009
5. Office Instruction No. Spl.-1/2009-2PR(FD), dated 12-06-2009
The above mentioned office memorandum instructions have been issued keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the following cases:-
(i) Civil Appeal No. 13423 of 1996 State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Veterinary & AHTH Association (decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated Sept., 19, 2000).
(ii) Civil Appeal No. 5740-5741 of 1997 State of Haryana Vs. Ravinder Kumar & others (decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 31-10-2000).
(iii) Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India, 1979 (4) SCC 440 (judgement of Supreme Court).
(iv) State of Rajasthan Vs. Punji Ramkarn, 1997 (2) SCC 517 (judgement of Supreme Court).
(v) CWP No. 15555/2003 — Sheela Devi & others Vs. State of Haryana and CWP No. 15055 of 2003 Badal Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
(vi) CWP No. 7862 of 2008 — Hanumant Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana (decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 04-07-2008).
Vide instruction No. Spl.-I/2009-2PR(FD), dated 12-06-2009, all the Head of the Departments were requested to file review applications in their cases which were disposed of by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in terms of the judgement in Hanumant Singh’s case.
It is also pointed out that a bunch of SLPs in main SLP No. 13368/2009 State of Haryana & others Vs. Rajinder Kumar & others is pending for the adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. All these cases were disposed of by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in terms of Hanumant Singh’s case.
A bunch of Civil Writ Petition in main CWP No. 2409 of 2008 was decided by the High Court vide order dated 18-12-2008. In these cases, the petitioners were claiming the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of the seniority in the cadre. These writ petitions were disposed of by Punjab & Haryana High Court in terms of the judgment of Hanumant Singh’s case. Against the judgement dated 18-12-2008 in CWP No. 2409 of 2008, SLP No. 29874 of 2009 was filed. The said appeal has been allowed by the Supreme Court vide order dated August 22, 2012. It is necessary to point here that while disposing of above mentioned case, the Supreme Court has set aside the order dated 18-12-2008 passed by High Court in a bunch of Civil Writ Petition in main CWP No. 2409 of 2008. The Supreme Court considered the various previous judgement on the issue and the contention raised by party while disposing of SLP No. 29874 of 2009. The operative part of the judgement (para no. 24 and 25) is reproduced as under:-
“24. None of the aforesaid judgements can be read as laying down a proposition of law that a person who is appointed on purely adhoc basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the one who is competent to make regular appointment to the service and such appointment is not made by the specified recruiting agency is entitled to have his adhoc service counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority. Therefore, the respondents, who were appointed as Masters in different subjects, physical Training Instructor and Hindi Teacher on purely adhoc basis without following the procedure prescribed under the 1955 Rules are not entitled to have their seniority fixed on the basis of total length of service. As a corollary to this, we hold that the direction given by the High Court for re-fixation of the respondents’ seniority by counting that adhoc service cannot be approved.
25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs”.
You are requested to bring the above mentioned instructions/judgments of Supreme Court of India and Punjab and Haryana High Court to the the notice of Courts in all those cases of your department which are still pending for adjudication.
Under Secretary Finance (PR)
for Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana,