- (1.) In this joint petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India 136 petitioners have sought a mandamus to the respondents to grant them additional increments on completion of 8 & 18 years of service in a particular group including work-charge / temporary service and consequently for grant of higher standard pay scale and all other benefits and allowances as are being paid to the regularly appointed employees in 2 nd respondent i.e. the Minor Irrigation & Tubewell Corporation, Haryana.
(2.) It is not disputed that the period of work-charge service of the petitioners was followed by regular appointment. The short controversy involved in this petition is "Whether the period of service spent on work- charge basis should be clubbed with the period of service after regularization for calculating 8 & 18 years service for grant of benefit of additional increments" and thereafter, for grant of higher standard pay scale. The petitioners have relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No. 18429 of 1996 titled Banta Ram & others vs. State of Haryana & others decided on 6.2.1997. The text of the judgment has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. Against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court an SLP was filed and there was a stay of operation of the order of the Division Bench. Consequently, by order dated 13.2.1998 the present case was adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties for reviving the case as and when the aforesaid case is decided by Hon'ble the Apex Court. The petitioners have placed order dated 31.10.2000 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on record through C.M. Nos. 27864-65 of 2000 in the batch of cases with main case titled 'State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ravinder Kumar & Ors.', which reads as under :- "Delay condoned in SLPs. These batch of cases were delinked while hearing an another batch of appeals from the same State,which were disposed of by us by judgment dated 19 th September, 2000. It is conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in these cases we are concerned with employees who had been engaged initially on work charge basis and later on they were regularised and brought into the cadre of the service. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that this period which the employees has rendered as work charge basis count for the purpose of the increment in the cadre as well as the qualifying service for the pension. We therefore see no justification in not counting their period for the purpose of giving additional increment on completion of 8 and 18 years of service as well as 10 and 20 years of service for getting higher scale as per the Government Circular, which obviously are intended to avoid stagnation in a particular grade. In that view of the matter, we see no justification for our interference with the impugned order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. These appeals and SLPs. accordingly stand dismissed." (underlining for emphasis)
(3.) The Hon'ble Division Bench applied the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab & Others,1950 88 RSJ 433, whereby a direction was issued to count such work charge service towards computing total service for grant of additional increments.;