Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-2363-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1049 (21 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6164-C of 2005 and

RSA NO.2363 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION:March 3, 2006

Balbir Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri D.S.Nalwa, DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The plaintiff having concurrently lost before the two Courts below in a suit for declaration claiming that he was entitled to the counting of his period of adhoc service towards pay fixation has approached this Court through the present appeal.

The plaintiff claimed that he was appointed as a Hindi Typist-cum-Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.110-225 with the Haryana Roadways with effect from September 10,1974 after getting no objection certificate from the General Manager, Haryana Roadways.

He applied for the post of Clerk in the Board of School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the counting of past service which he had rendered with the Haryana Roadways.

The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed that the plaintiff was merely serving as an adhoc employee with the CM No.6164-C of 2005 and

Haryana Roadways and as such his claim was not covered under the instructions issued by the State Government.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff was working as an adhoc employee with the Haryana Roadways. It has been noticed that the plaintiff had resigned from the job and joined the services of Board of School Education. It has also been noticed that the plaintiff had not joined the new post by applying through proper channel. Consequently, it has been held that the past service of the plaintiff in Haryana Roadways could not be counted towards any benefit. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned First Appellate Court.

In view of the last laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association 2000(4) SCT 664, the benefit of adhoc services cannot be claimed by an employee for the purposes of pay fixation.

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

March 03, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.