Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Work-Charge Service Cannot Count for Proficiency Step-Up in Government Jobs: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set a legal precedent by reaffirming that service rendered on a work-charge or ad-hoc basis cannot be considered for the purpose of proficiency step-up increments in government jobs. The judgment, delivered by the bench of Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Kamal on October 3, 2023, is expected to have significant implications for government employees seeking such benefits in the region.

The court's ruling dismissed the petitioners' claims, emphasizing key points in its observation.

"The judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not constitute binding precedent in the present case," noted the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The judgment highlighted a clarificatory letter from the State of Punjab, stating that service on a work-charge basis is not to be counted for the grant of proficiency step-up. This decision aligns with a consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that service on a work-charge basis cannot be equated with regular service for granting benefits like increments or proficiency step-up unless specific rules and policies explicitly permit it.

The judgment also stressed the potential consequences of granting such benefits, stating that it could lead to "multiplicity of litigation" and "anomalous situations." This ruling establishes a legal precedent for similar cases within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

While referring to various cases in its observation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments, ultimately dismissing their claims. The judgment is expected to provide clarity in matters related to the calculation of service periods for government employees seeking proficiency step-up increments.

This landmark decision is likely to impact government employees in the Punjab and Haryana region, providing a clear guideline for the calculation of service periods for those on work-charge or ad-hoc service. It underscores the importance of adhering to established rules and policies in government service matters.

Date of Decision: October 3, 2023

Ranjit Singh and others  vs State of Punjab and others

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Ranjit_Singh_And_Ors_vs_State_Of_Punjab_Ors_on_3_October_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News