Ravinder Singh & ORS. v. State Of Punjab And ORS.
CWP-22744-2017 (O&M) & CWP-4378-2018 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22744-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:23.05.2024 Ravinder Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CWP-4378-2018 (O&M) Preet Kiran and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present:- Mr. RK Arora, Advocate Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(ORAL) 1.
These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
2.
The prayer in the present petitions is for quashing the clause in the order dated 14.03.2017 to the effect that there should not be any break between the adhoc and regular service, so as to grant the benefit of pay fixation by counting the ad hoc service of the petitioners.
3.
Learned counsel submits that the benefit of pay fixation by counting ad hoc service, that was followed by regular service, was not granted to the petitioners, on account of there being a break in their service, which has now been RITU KUKREJA 2024.05.28 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-22744-2017 (O&M) & CWP-4378-2018 (O&M) condoned, vide order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-17) and they have been given the deemed date of appointment w.e.f 01.01.1997. It is further submitted that the benefits have been given only to petitioner No.9-Gurdeep Kaur, in a pick and choose manner. Even otherwise, in view of the direction of this Court, State of Punjab and others vs. Kewal Singh 1 , it has been decided, vide the order dated 29.01.2018, appended as Annexure R-1 with the reply, that for the purpose of computing retiral benefits adhoc service or service rendered on 89 days basis shall also be considered as qualifying one. In view of the aforesaid development that has taken place, during the pendency of the petitions, he, on instructions, submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to decide their claim in a time bound manner.
4.
Learned State counsel has no objection to the limited prayer made. 5.
In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of the cases, present petitions are hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners taking note of the submissions made as also the facts as stated hereinabove, within a period of 6 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner.
6.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. 7.
Pending applications, if any, shall be rendered as disposed of. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) MAY 23, 2024 JUDGE ritu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No RITU KUKREJA 2024.05.28 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 1 LPA-589-2015, decided on 27.10.2016