Only regular service for seniority: SC Prabhjot Singh Tribune News Service Chandigarh, March “Only regular service is to be counted towards seniority,” observed the Supreme Court while allowing 29 Special Leave Petitions preferred by the Punjab Government against the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in allowing ad-hoc service to be included in calculating the period of service of eight to 18 years for giving a higher scale of pay under the proficiency step -up scheme.. A Division Bench of the apex court, comprising Mr Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Mr Justice Doraiswamy Raju, said in their order that the judgment or orders passed by the high court holding that ad-hoc service was to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay were unsustainable and had to be vacated. “Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgments/orders of the high court under challenge are set aside,” they said in their order. This landmark judgment of the apex court would become applicable to hundreds of cases of teachers, doctors, technocrats, veterinary doctors and others who had been benefited by the earlier orders/judgments of the high court in allowing ad-hoc service to be counted for calculating the period of eight to 18 years of service for giving a higher pay scale under the proficiency step-up scheme. It all started a couple of years ago when the high court in the Harjinder Kaur and others vs Punjab Education Department case held that ad-hoc service was to be counted. A similar verdict was passed in the case of Dr G.K. Uppal vs Punjab Health Department. Subsequently, several orders were passed in allowing counting of ad- hoc service rendered by the respondents. The Supreme Court observed that the issue had been considered by a three-Judges Bench of the apex court in the State of Haryana vs Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and others case wherein the court took the view that for calculating eight to 18 years service required for giving a higher scale of pay and for the determination of seniority, only regular service rendered by the employee was to be counted and not ad-hoc service. In the Dr G.K. Uppal case, counsel strenuously contended that the respondents who were doctors serving under the state of Punjab were 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 would not be applicable to these cases. “We have carefully considered the said contention. We have also considered a circular of December, 1981, where it is clear that the instructions 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 in the Haryana veterinary &AHTS Association and others case,” the order said. The apex court also allowed that financial benefits already passed should not be recovered. “However, we make it clear that if any of the respondents has drawn any amount on the basis of the higher scale of pay granted to him taking into account the ad -hoc service then such amount already drawn by the employee shall not be recovered, though his cadre seniority and other consequential benefits will be governed by the decision rendered herein,” the order said...
Posted on: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:57:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015