Jarnail Singh & ORS. v. Punjab State & ORS.
!"# $% &#'()($* ++, - .
.+
/..
. .+
0- + . .
.
.
!"#$ !2)(32!* .(*45 .#"5(6 + 2!7 % & ' $' $(
) ' (
"
$)" ' '* $"
" '
+ , * - . " "$* "'
( ' ) '$ " ( '" / $"' $" * ($' * * '" / $("' ' 0 . " "
#"
'*1$
! " #
$%
&
' 2 . "
'$
"$*
" ($ $(1$
('( ) * + * + + * ,
%
%
#"
'*3"
" ' $"
* (* '" $( $)" ) ' 4 . "
" "$* $ " * $' "' $( $( '
"
823##" .(*45 !*& $"5#2) + , $'( * ( " * ( " $'$( ($ * (* 5 & " ' "' $
6 7" )' 8 $(* ( '" / $' "'$ * "'' $"
* ($ $(1$ * + + * ,
%
+ , #"
'* " Rule 11 provides for continuation on probation for a period of 2 years and Rule 12 is the Rule for seniority. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules puts the
controversy beyond any doubt and the only conclusion which could be drawn from the aforesaid Rules is that the services rendered either on ad hoc basis or as a stopgap arrangement, as in the case in hand from 1980 to 1982 cannot be held to be regular service for getting the benefits of the revised scale of pay or of the selection grade under the Government Memorandum dated 2nd June, 1989 and 16th May, 1990, and therefore, the majority judgment of the High Court must be held to be contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules, consequently cannot be sustained. 9 $ "
#"
'* "
' ' $ $(1$ *
' $" *
8 ) '$ $)" : $' $(
$(1$
+ ,*($ * (
* ( ' " * ( " * ( ' * %; & * ( * ( * ( " $' $ " * $( )' $
) ' < "
"
* $' $(1$
#"
'*
+ ,
$
$ ' *
* * + + * ,
%
+ , %% ' ( "* * ' $" *$("' ' "
' )' $ ' ( *
%- '
(
' (
.
.
.
++,
* =
)'8 >
= $ ?