Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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