Case Note & Summary
The case involved a petition filed by Narinder Singh and others seeking a direction for the counting of their ad hoc service for the purpose of pay fixation in the revised pay-scale, as well as for the Senior Scale/Selection Grade and Proficiency Step-Up. The petitioners contended that their ad hoc service should be recognized in the calculation of their pay and benefits. The State counsel acknowledged that while ad hoc service could be counted for pay fixation in the Time Scale, it could not be extended to benefits like Proficiency Step-Up, which are contingent upon satisfactory regular service. The court analyzed the arguments and determined that the petitioners were entitled to have their ad hoc service counted for pay fixation but not for the Proficiency Step-Up. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed in part, with a directive to the respondents to take necessary actions within six months from the receipt of the order. The decision underscored the distinction between ad hoc service and the requirements for regular service benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Counting of Ad Hoc Service - High Court allowed partial counting of ad hoc service for pay fixation in Time Scale but denied benefits for Proficiency Step-Up - The court held that such benefits require satisfactory regular service. - Punjab Government Employees (Pay) Rules, 2009, Section Not mentioned - The court directed the respondents to implement the order within six months. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc service can be counted for the purpose of pay fixation and Proficiency Step-Up.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the respondents to count the ad hoc service for pay fixation in the Time Scale but denied the benefits for Proficiency Step-Up, requiring satisfactory regular service for such benefits.
Law Points
- Pay fixation
- Ad hoc service
- Proficiency Step-Up
- Time Scale
- Satisfactory regular service
