Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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"]

Similar News