LexSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SITA RAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 11 S.C.R. 529 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. SITA RAM AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5411-5430 of 2009) OCTOBER 29, 2013 . [G.S. SINGHVI AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Service Law: A B Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) c Rules, 1998 - r.5(1) and (2) - Benefit under - Whether can be granted by treating the work charge service as regular service - Held: Cannot be granted, because as per rules, a service can be treated as regular service only if there is regular recruitment in accordance with the prescribed D procedure or rules - This is in total contrast with work-charge service. The respondent-employees of the appellant-State approached the High Court seeking benefit under Haryana Civil Servlces (Assured Career Progression) E Rules, 1998, by counting their work charge service as regular service. The same was granted by High Court. Hence the present appeals by the State. Allowing the appeals, the Court F HELD: The Division Benches of the High Court committed an error by directing the appellants to treat work charge service of the respondents as part of regular service for the purpose of Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998. G The reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court for granting relief to the respondents are legally untenable, and the same are based on erroneous 529 H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R. A interpretation of the expression "regular satisfactory service" used in Rule 5(1) and (2) of the 1998 Rules. The note appearing below Rule 5(2) makes it clear that the expression "regular satisfactory service" means continuous service counting towards seniority under B Haryana Government, including continuous service in Punjab Government, before reorganization, commencing from the date on which the Government servant joins service after being recruited through the prescribed procedure or rules, etc., for regular recruitment in the c particular cadre. It is, thus, evident that the rule making authority has laid emphasis on regular recruitment in accordance with the prescribed procedure or rules as a condition for treating the particular service as regular service. This is in total contrast to work charge service 0 which is always in work charge establishment and is not preceded by regular selection made in accordance with any set of rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or executive instructions. It is also not incumbent upon the competent authority to advertise the E availability of work/post in the work charge establishment or send requisition to the employment exchange as per the requirement of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Not only this, the conditions of appointment of work charge employees are altogether different from those who are F regularly recruited in accordance with the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 or executive instructions issued by the State under Article 162 of the Constitution and whose service is treated as regular service. [Paras G 11 and 18] [545-H; 546-A-G] State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman (1997) 2 SCC 517: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 255; State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association (2000) 8 SCC 4: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 322; Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Jagjiwan H Ram (2009) 3 SCC 661: 2009 (3) SCR 209; Kesar Chand STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM 531 vs. State of Punjab, Recent Service Judgments (1950-1988) A Vol.1 433 - relied on. Jaswant Singh vs. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 440: 1980 (1) SCR 420; State of Punjab vs. lshar Singh (2002) 10 sec 674 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 255 relied on Para 7 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 322 relied on Para 7 2009 (3) SCR 209 relied on Para 7 (1950-1988) Vol.1 433 relied on Para 8 1980 (1) SCR 420 referred to Para 13 (2002) 10 sec 674 referred to Para 16 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5411-5430 of 2009. · B c D From the Judgment & Order dated 08.07.2004 of the High E Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos. 12497, 13299, 17222, 17525, 17526, 17527, 18096, 153f8, 15330, 15517, 15563, 16354, 16317, 16316, 16121, 12702 of 2002, 3157, 3442, 3564 & 4266 of 2003 . . WITH C.A. Nos. 5431-5441, 5442-5459, 5460-5479, 5480-5499, 5500-5516, 5517, 5518-5537, 5538, 5539, 5541, 5543, 5544, 5545 of 2009 & 912 of 2010. F G/ Neer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.