Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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