State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6521 of 1998
With Civil Appeal Nos. 6535, 6537, 6533 & 6555, 6528 of 1998, 3785/1999, 6062/2000 and C.A. No. 1474 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1561/1998 and CA No. 1475 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5626/1999)
With Civil Appeal Nos. 6535, 6537, 6533 & 6555, 6528 of 1998, 3785/1999, 6062/2000 and C.A. No. 1474 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1561/1998 and CA No. 1475 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5626/1999)
Petitioner: State of Punjab & Ors.
Respondent: Gurdeep Kumar Uppal & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6521 of 1998
With Civil Appeal Nos. 6535, 6537, 6533 & 6555, 6528 of 1998, 3785/1999, 6062/2000 and C.A. No. 1474 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1561/1998 and CA No. 1475 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5626/1999)
With Civil Appeal Nos. 6535, 6537, 6533 & 6555, 6528 of 1998, 3785/1999, 6062/2000 and C.A. No. 1474 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1561/1998 and CA No. 1475 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5626/1999)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 20, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Punjab Civil Medical Services Class II (Recruitment and Condi-tions of Service) Rules, 1943
Rule 7(5) – Step-up scheme – Higher pay scale for 8 years/18years of service – If ad hoc services to be counted. Held that only regular service is to be counted and not ad hoc. State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary case (JT 2000 (10) SC 561) relied upon and followed. Benefits drawn not to be recov-ered. (Paras 4, 7)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Another (JT 2000 (10) SC 561) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos. 1561 of 1998 and 5626 of 1999.
2. Heard Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, learned senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.S. Sohal, learned Counsel for respondents.
3. The respondents are doctors serving under the Government of Punjab.
4. The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the period of ad hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for calculating the period of 8 or 18 years of service for giving higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme. This question was considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Another (JT 2000 (10) SC 561) wherein this Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad hoc service.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the respondents who are doctors serving under the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and circulars different from those which were considered in the decided case and therefore the ratio in that case will not be applicable in these cases. We have carefully considered the said contention. We have also considered the circular letter no. 4-15-81 IPP/16047 dated 14th December, 1981. On a plain reading of the circular it is clear that the instruc-tions contained therein were based on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court taking the view that ad hoc service should be taken into account for the purpose. This circular in our view can no longer form the basis of the contention in view of the recent decision by this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association & Another (supra). Undisputedly the respondents at the time of their appointment were governed by the Punjab Civil Medical Services Class II (Recruitment and Condi-tions of Service) Rules, 1943. In Clause (5) of Rule 7 of the said Rules, it is provided that the seniority of the members, in each branch shall be determined by the dates of their confirma-tion in service. Further, in the orders appointing the respond-ents on ad hoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated in paragraph III of the appointment letter that the appointees’ seniority will be determined only by merit in which he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be counted towards seniority.
6. We do not feel it necessary to delve further into merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State of Harya-na v. Haryana Veterinary AHTS Association and Another (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the cases in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/orders passed by the High Court holding that ad hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay are unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judg-ments/orders of the High Court under challenge are set aside.
7. However, we make it clear that if any of the respondents has drawn any amount on the basis of the higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme granted to him by including the period of his ad hoc service then the State Government shall not recover the amount already drawn by the employee though for fixation of the cadre seniority, the position as laid down in this order will govern. No costs.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos. 1561 of 1998 and 5626 of 1999.
2. Heard Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, learned senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.S. Sohal, learned Counsel for respondents.
3. The respondents are doctors serving under the Government of Punjab.
4. The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the period of ad hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for calculating the period of 8 or 18 years of service for giving higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme. This question was considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Another (JT 2000 (10) SC 561) wherein this Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad hoc service.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the respondents who are doctors serving under the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and circulars different from those which were considered in the decided case and therefore the ratio in that case will not be applicable in these cases. We have carefully considered the said contention. We have also considered the circular letter no. 4-15-81 IPP/16047 dated 14th December, 1981. On a plain reading of the circular it is clear that the instruc-tions contained therein were based on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court taking the view that ad hoc service should be taken into account for the purpose. This circular in our view can no longer form the basis of the contention in view of the recent decision by this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association & Another (supra). Undisputedly the respondents at the time of their appointment were governed by the Punjab Civil Medical Services Class II (Recruitment and Condi-tions of Service) Rules, 1943. In Clause (5) of Rule 7 of the said Rules, it is provided that the seniority of the members, in each branch shall be determined by the dates of their confirma-tion in service. Further, in the orders appointing the respond-ents on ad hoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated in paragraph III of the appointment letter that the appointees’ seniority will be determined only by merit in which he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be counted towards seniority.
6. We do not feel it necessary to delve further into merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State of Harya-na v. Haryana Veterinary AHTS Association and Another (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the cases in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/orders passed by the High Court holding that ad hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay are unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judg-ments/orders of the High Court under challenge are set aside.
7. However, we make it clear that if any of the respondents has drawn any amount on the basis of the higher scale of pay under the proficiency step-up scheme granted to him by including the period of his ad hoc service then the State Government shall not recover the amount already drawn by the employee though for fixation of the cadre seniority, the position as laid down in this order will govern. No costs.
