- (1.) The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgement dated 16.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single by the unsuccessful appellants is 'whether the period of adhoc service rendered by an employee could be counted for grant of additional increment under Rule 5 of the Haryana Government Employees (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for brevity 'the Rules')'. The learned Single Judge has found that the increment paid to the appellants by counting their adhoc service on completion of 8/18 years of service have been rightly withdrawn by order dated 6.2.2008 (P.14) but has set aside the demand made by the respondents to recover the overpayment made. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another,2008 8 SCC 4. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the service rendered either on adhoc LPA No. 191 of 2011 2 or stop gap arrangement cannot be regarded as regular service for securing the benefit of revised scale of pay or selection grade. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2002 4 SCT 432 and concluded as under: "Therefore, it stands concluded that the ad hoc service, rendered by the petitioners, is not liable to be reckoned towards total length of service, for the purpose of receiving the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme."
(2.) The learned Single Judge, however set aside the order of recovery by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 3 SCT 333.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge which is based on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association's case . It iss well settled principle of law that work charge or adhoc service would not qualify for reckoning the period of 8/18 years as contemplated by Rule 5 of the rules for grant of additional increment. On the aforesaid basis the order refixing the pay has been upheld by the learned Single Judge.The same view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singhand others, 2002 10 SCC 674; State of Punjab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and others, 2008 12 SCC 572 and PSEB and others v. Jagjivan Ram and others, 2009 3 SCC 661.;