- (1.) THE claim of the petitioners for the grant of Assured Career Progression (for short "A.C.P.") Scales in terms of Rule 5 of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for short "Rules") was rejected by this Court by order dated 25.11.2002.
(2.) THE petitioners claimed that their work charge period of service be counted for the purpose of counting the period of 10 years of service in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Having considered the matter, this Court held that Rule 5(1) of the Rules relates to satisfactory service and this service cannot include work charge service. The petitioners seek review of the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that in fact a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram v. State of Haryana, 2004(4) SCT 562 (P&H) (DB) held that where work charge service is followed by a regularization, such service would be treated as regular satisfactory service for the grant of higher A.C.P. Scales. Besides, it is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Haryana v. Ravinder Kumar, C.A. No. 5740-5741 of 1997, decided on 31.10.2000 held that the period of work charge service is countable for the purposes of additional increments of higher standard pay scale after 8/18 and 10/20 years of service. Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 25.11.2002 passed by this Court be reviewed and the work charge period of service rendered by the petitioners be counted for the grant of ACP Scales.
(3.) MR . Sidhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the ground of review sought by the petitioners is without any basis and review cannot be sought merely on the ground that some judgments which cover the case of the petitioners were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the case.;