Holding

Work‑charged employees' service cannot be counted as regular service for the purpose of time‑bound promotional scales or promotional increments unless a specific provision expressly provides for such counting.

Summary

The Punjab State Electricity Board introduced a scheme granting time‑bound promotional scales after 9/16 years of regular service and promotional increments after 23 years of regular service. A group of employees who had initially been engaged as work‑charged staff and later regularised claimed that their prior work‑charged service should be counted towards the required years of regular service. The Board contended that only regular service, as defined in the scheme, could be counted, and relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions distinguishing work‑charged and regular employees. The Court examined the nature of work‑charged establishments, reaffirming that such employees form a distinct class and their service cannot be clubbed with regular service unless a specific statutory provision allows it. Consequently, the Court held that the respondents were not entitled to the benefits of the scheme based on their work‑charged tenure and set aside the High Court order. The appeals were allowed and the writ petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of work‑charged service towards the 'regular service' requirement for time‑bound promotional scales and promotional increments under the Board's scheme.
Whether any statutory or scheme provision permits counting of work‑charged service as regular service for seniority and promotion purposes.

Subjects

work‑charged employeesregular servicepromotional scalesseniorityservice regularisationequal payad hoc servicePunjab State Electricity Boardservice benefits

Judgment

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A filed the appeal.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Work-charged employees are engaged for
execution of a specified work or project and their
B engagement comes to an end on completion of the work
or project. The source and mode of engagement/
recruitment, their pay, conditions of employment, and •
their duties and responsibilities are substantially different
from the persons appointed in the regular establishment
C against sanctioned posts after following the procedure
prescribed under the relevant Act or rules. They cannot
be treated at par with the employees of regular
establishment. Service of a work charged-employee in
the work charged establishment cannot be clubbed with ..
D service in a regular establishment unless a specific
provision to that effect is made either in the relevant
statute or the scheme of Regularization. If the statute or
scheme under which service of work charged employee
is regularized does not provide for counting of past
E service, the work charged employee cannot claim benefit
of such service for the purpose of fixation of seniority in
the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts, fixation
of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments etc. [Para
7] [218-A] •
F Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others
(1979) 4 SCC 440 and State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman
(1997) 2 sec 517, relied on.

State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS
G Association and another (2000) 8 sec 4; State of Punjab and
others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others (2003) 11 SCC
732 and State of Punjab and others v. /shar Singh and other
(2002) 10 sec 674, referred to.

1.2. Under the scheme framed by the Board, the
H
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 211
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS.

benefit of time bound promotional scales was to be given A
to the employees only on their completing 9/16 years
regular service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional
increments could be given only on completion of 23
years regular service. The use of the term ·regular
service' in various paragraphs of the scheme shows that 8
service rendered by an employee after regular
appointment could only be counted for computation of
9/16/23 years service, and not the service rendered as an
adhoc or work-charged employee, for extending the
benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional C
increments. The respondents were not entitled to the
benefit of time bound promotional scales I promotional
increments from a date prior to completion of 9/16/23
years regular service and the High Court committed
serious error by directing the appellants to give them
• benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged 0
service. [Para 13] [226-E; 227-A]

Case Law Reference:
(2000) s sec 4 referred to ·para 4
E
(2003) 11 sec 132 referred to para 4
(2002) 10 sec 674 referred to para 4
(1979) 4 sec 440 relied on para 8
F
(1997) 2 sec s11 relied on para 9

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 890
of 2009.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.5.2005 of the G
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
4185 of 2005.

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 891 of 2009 'H
212 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.CR .
_,,-·
A Satinder S. Gulati, Kamaldeep Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand,
J.S. Puri and Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellants.
...
Surijit Singh, R.K. Talwar, Sanjay K. Hadala, S.L. Aneja,
K.L. Taneja, S. Janani, Deepak Goel, K.G. Bhagat, Manju
Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Manohar Singh Bakshi, Kasturi Lal and
B Debasis Misra for the Respondents.
•,
The Judgment of the court was delivered by
•
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
c 2. With a view to give relief to the employees who were
stagnating in particular positions for a long period of time, the
Punjab State Electricity Board [for short, "the Board"]
introduced a scheme for giving time bound promotional scales/
1
increments on completion of 9/16/23 years of regular service.
D The same was circulated vide office order dated 23rd April, •
1990, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:-

"In continuation consolidation and sup1~rsession of
instructions contained in this office order No.174/PRC/Fin-
E 1988 dated 17.07.1989, Memo No.11163/11863/PRC/
Fin-1/1988/L-Vl/(Prop) dated 19.1.1990 and O/o No.194/
PRC/Fin-1988, dated 30.03.1990.

The Punjab State Electricity Board have been seized of
the problems of stagnation prevailing amongst the various
F cadres of regular employees and its consequent effect on
their efficiency, is felt that an employee should, under ideal
service conditions get normally two promotions from his
initial recruitment level during his service. However, this is
not always possible owing to non-availability of promotional
G posts. The aspiration of the employees, can, however be
met to a great extent by allowing time bound higher scales
to the employees at two stages in their service career. The
Punjab State Electricity Board has therefore, decided to
introduce a scheme to allow time bound benefit of
H promotional scales after the completion of 9116 years of
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 213
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
--.,.., regular service in the PSEB, provided the maximum A
benefit on being placed in the time bound promotional
scale does not exceed five increments including
promotional increment(s) to the subordinate employee
having a maximum scale upto Rs.3500/- except the
categories where the benefit of time bound placement to B
higher scale is applicable on the Punjab Govt. pattern as
in the case of teachers etc. When the benefit so exceeds
five increments, the time bound pron1otional scale will be
so revised that the minimum benefit on being placed in the
time bound promotional scale is five increments including c
promotional increment(s). It is clarified that in devising the
scale, the case of a direct recruit will be taken, who
presumably enters service on minimum of the scale on
1.1.1986. A promotee employee will be fixed at the
minimum of this promotional revised time bound scale and
t D
in case he has already crossed the minimum of time
bound promotional scale or revised higher time bound
scale, as the case may be, his pay will be fixed as if he
has been promoted in the ordinary course i.e., by allowing
promotional increment(s). Likewise a direct recruit on
E
completion of nine years regular service will draw
minimum of the promotional time bound revised scale
irrespective of difference of more than five increments
' between the pay drawn by him on completion of 9 years
¥
service and the minimum of this promotional revised time
bound scale and in the event of his pay having already F
crossed the minimum of this promotional revised time
bound scale or promotional time bound scale, as the case
may be, his pay will be fixed as he has promoted in the
ordinary course i.e. by allowing promotional increment(s).
G
The scheme to allow Time Bound benefit of Promotional
Scale' will take effect from 1.1.1986. However, the payment
of arrears would be spread over to two years i.e. arrears
from 1.1.1986 to 28.2.89 and 1989-90 would be paid in
1990-91and1991-92, respectively. H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A Features of the Scheme:-
,,,.-
1. The benefit of first time bound placement into
promotional/revised promotional scale, as
determined and notified on the basis of principles
enunciated above, would become available to an
B
employee on completion of 9 (Nine) years of
regular service on a post and the second time
bound Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale
would become available after completion of 16
(sixteen) years of service. If an employee gets
c normal promotion to the next higher post before
completion of 9 years service from the date of direct
recruitment then he will not be given first time bound
Promotional/Revised Promotional scale. He will be
eligible to get second time bound Promotional/
D Revised Promotional Scale after the completion of "
16 years of service counted from the date of direct
recruitment provided he does not earn second
normal promotion before the completion of the
above said 16 years of service. Further, an
E employee placed into the first Promotional/Revised
Promotional Scale on account of high length of
service will not be placed into the second
Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale before ,
completion of at least three years from the date of •
F his placement into the first promotional revised
promotional scale.

For example an employee who has completed 17
years of service in an induction post and was not
promoted upto 1.1.1986, will be allowed 1st time
G
bound Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale on
1.1.1985 and the 2nd time bound Promotional/
Revised Promotional Scale will be admissible on
1.1.1989 i.e. after completion of three years service
in the first time bound Promotional/Revised
H
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 215
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

Promotional Scale. A

2. For granting the time bound Promotional/Revised
Promotional Scale to each employee in any cadre,
the prescribed period will be counted from the date
of commencement of service on the lowest post on
B
which regular appointment has been made through
direct recruitment in the concerned cadre.

3. At the time of placement in the time bound
Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale, the
employee will be allowed promotional increment(s), C
as are admissible on promotion under the
provisions of Regulation 8 of PSEB (Revised Pay)
Regulations, 1988 and as amended from time to
time.
D
• 4. If an employee already in the service of the Board
is directly appointed to a higher post through open
selection then for the purpose of grant of time
bound Promotional/Revised Promotional Scale in
that cadre counting of the period of service will
E
commence from the date of joining the above post
by direct recruitment.

5. The Board shall draw up schedule(s) indicating the
lowest post(s) for direct recruitment in respect of
various cadres for the purpose of this order, F
separately.

Xx xx xx xx xx

(i) The Punjab State Elecy. Board has further decided
to allow benefit of promotional increment(s) to an G
employee on completion of 23 years of regular
service provided:-

(ii) He has not been benefited by the scheme of 9/16
years time bound promotional scale. H

v
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A (iii) He has not earned three regular promotions in his
career.

(iv) He has not earned third promotion in his regular
service between 16th and 23rd years of service.

B (v) The increments referred to in para-2 above are in
the nature of advance promotional benefit to be
absorbed in next regular promotion.

Sd/-
c Deputy Secretary/Finance."

(Emphasis added)

3. The respondents, who were engaged as work charged
D employees in the service of the Board between 18.11.1971
and 23.1 0.1993 and were appointed on regular basis on
different dates between 7.11.1979 and 26.5.1999, filed writ
petitions for issue of a direction to the Board and its officers
to count their work charged service for the purpose of grant of
E time bound promotional scales/promotional increments from
the date of completion of 9/16/23 years service.

4. The appellants contested the claim of the respondents
by asserting that benefit of time bound promotional scales can
be given only from the date of completion of 9/16 years regular
F service and promotional increments can be given on
completion of 23 years regular service and that work charged
service cannot be equated with regular service for the said
purpose. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants,
reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in State
G of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and
another [(2000) 8 sec 4] and State of Punjab and others v.
Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others [(2003) 11 SCC 732] and
it was averred that work charged service rendered by the writ-
petitioners (respondents herein) cannot be counted for
H extending them the benefit of time bound promotional scales
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 217
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
-~--.... and /or promotional increments. A

5. The Division Bench of the High Court did not advert to
the rival pleadings and contentions but granted relief to the writ
petitioners by simply relying upon order dated 31.10.2000
passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5740-5741/1997, State of B
Haryana and ors. v. Ravinder Kumar & ors.

~ 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that work
,, charged service cannot be treated as regular service for the
purpose of the scheme framed by the Board for grant of time
bound promotional scales on completion of 9/16 years of c
regular service or promotional increments on completion of 23
years of regular service because the work charged employees
are not appointed after following the procedure prescribed for
regular appointment. He further argued that work charged
... employees constitute a separate class and they cannot claim D
parity with regular employees in the matter of seniority, pay
fixation, promotion, etc. Learned counsel for the respondents
argued that even though the work charged service is not
synonymous with regular service, the High Court did not commit
any error by directing grant of benefit of the scheme to E
respondents because their services were subsequently
regularized. They strongly relied on instructions issued by the
State Government vide circular No.100012/39/2002-5 P-22/
•
• 9406 dated 17th July, 2002 and argued that after having
implemented the order passed by the High Court in Civil Writ F
Petition No.4382 of 2002, Satbir Singh and others v. State of
Haryana, the appellants cannot deny them benefit of time bound
promotional scales I promotional increments on the spacious
ground that work charged service cannot be clubbed with
regular service.
G

~
7. We have considered the respective submissions.
Generally speaking, a work charged establishment is an
establishment of which the expenses are chargeable to works.
The pay and allowances of the employees who are engaged
on a work charged establishment are usually shown under a H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A specified sub-head of the estimated cost of works. The work
charged employees are engaged for execution of a specified
work or project and their engagement comes to an end on
completion of the work or project. The source and mode of
engagement/recruitment of work charged employees, their pay
B and conditions of employment are altogether different from the
persons appointed in the regular establishment against
sanctioned posts after following the procedure prescribed
under the relevant Act or rules and their duties and
responsibilities are also substantially different than those of
c regular employees. The work charged employees can claim
protection under the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights ftowing
from any particular statute but they cannot be treated at par with
the employees of regular establishment. They can neither claim
regularization of service as of right nor they can claim pay
scales and other financial benefits at par with regular
0
employees. If the service of a work charged employee is
regularized under any statute or a scheme framed by the
employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment
from the date of regularization. His service in the work charged
establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular
E establishment unless a specific provision to that effect is made
either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularization. In
other words, if the statute or scheme under which service of
work charged employee is regularized does no! provide for
•
counting of past service, the work charged employee cannot
•
F claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation of
seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts,
fixation of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments etc.

8. In Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and
G others [(1979) 4 SCC 440]. this Court considered the issue
relating to nature of work charged establishment, status of work
charged employees and held that the employees appointed on
work charged establishment are not entitled to service benefits
available to regular employees.
H
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 219
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

9. In State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman ((1997) 2 SCC A
517], the Court considered the questions whether principle of
equal pay for equal work can be invoked for granting parity to
the work charged employees with regular employees and
whether the provisions of the Rajasthan Service (Concessions
on· Project) Rules, 1962 and Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 B
are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
, inasmuch as the same do not treat employees of the wor
charged establishment at par with regular employees. Af
er noticing the earlier judgment in Jaswant Singh's case, the
Court he~: c
"A work-charged establishment thus differs from a
regular establishment which is permanent in nature.
Setting up and continuance of a work-charged
establishment is dependent upon the Government
undertaking a project or a scheme or a "work" and D
availability of funds for executing it. So far as
employees engaged in work-charged
establishments are concerned, not only their
recruitment and service conditions but the nature of
work and duties to be performed by them are not E
the same as those of the employees of the regular
establishment. A regular establishment and a work-
charged establishment are two separate types of
establishments and the persons employed on those
establishment~ thus form two separate and distinct F
classes. For that reason, if a separate set of rules
are framed for the persons engaged in the work-
cha rged establishment and the general rules
applicable to persons working on the regular
establishment are not made applicable to them, it G
cannot be said that they are treated in an arbitrary
and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is
well settled that the Government has the power to
frame different rules for different classes of
employees. We, therefore, reject the contention H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A raised on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. ,f"

653 of 1993 that clauses (g), (h) and (1) of Rule 2
of RSR are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and uphold the view taken by the High
Court.
8
The Project Rules have been framed by the
Government in exercise of the power available to
it under Rule 42 of the RSR. They are subsidiary
rules made for the purpose of granting special
concessions and allowances to government
c servants working on projects. When non-application
of the main rules. namely, RSR to work-charged
employees is not found to be violative of Articles
14 and 16 by the High Court it i8 difficult to
appreciate how the subsidiary rules for that reason
D only can be held to be violative of those articles.
...
The High Court failed to consider this aspect and
in our opinion, erroneously struck down Rules 2(b)
and (cf) of the 1962 Project Rules and Rules 4(2)
and (4) of the 1975 Project Rules.
E
It was also contended on behalf of the State that the
High Court having held that the workmen working
on the regular establishment and the employees
working on a work-charged establishment belong
to two separate categories and, therefore,
t
F
separate classification made by the Government in
that behalf is reasonable, committed a grave error
in striking down Rules 2(b) and (d) of the 1962
Project Rules and Rules 4(2) and (4) of the 1975
Project Rules by invoking the principle of equal pay
G
for equal work. The reason given by the High Court
for taking that view is that the project allowance is
compensatory in nature and, therefore, the
classification made between the work-charged
employees and the employees of the regular
H
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 221
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
i-.
establishment has no rational nexus with the object A
. sought to be achieved by those Rules. What the
High Court failed to appreciate is that when an
employee working in the regular establishment is
transferred to a project he has to leave his ordinary
place of residence and service and. go and reside B
within the project area. That is not the position in
the case of an employee who is engaged in the
• work-charged establishment for executing that
work. Respondent Kunji Raman and other
employees on whose behalf he had filed the petition c
were all engaged for execution of the Mahi Project
and thus they became a part of the work-charged
establishment of Mahi Project. They were not
required to shift from their regular place of service.
~
The High Court also failed to consider that for such
D
employees the pay scales under the Pay Scale
Rules are also different. The material produced by
the State goes to show that while fixing the pay
scales of employees of the work-charged
establishment of Mahi Project the element of project
E
allowance was also included therein and for that
reason their pay scales were higher than the pay

.'· scales of general category work-charged
employees, some of whom were transferred and
posted on the Mahi Project. Except a general denial
in the rejoinder-affidavit by Kunji Raman no other F
material has been produced to point out that the
said claim of the Government is not correct. The
order dated 30-4-1981 annexed with the rejoinder-
affidavit of Kunji Raman is with respect to those
work-charged employees who were absorbed on G
43 regular posts were newly created. They thus
ceased to be work-charged employees employed
on a project and became general category work-
charged employees whose pay scales were
different and were, therefore, paid the project H

..
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A allowance. Thus the claim made by respondent
Kunji Raman and other similarly situated employees
for granting them project allowance was really
misconceived. From what is now stated by them in
the counter-affidavit, it appears that what they really
B want is parity in all respects with the employees of
the regular establishment. In other words, what they
want is that they should be treated as regular •
employees of the Public Works Depa11ment of the •
Rajasthan Government and should be given all
c benefits which are made available under the RSR
and the Project Rules. Such a claim is not justified
and, therefore, the contention raised in that behalf
cannot be accepted."

10. The ratio of the above mentioned judgments is that
D work charged employees constitute a distinct class and they
cannot be equated with any other category or class of
employees much less regular employees and further that the
work charged employees are not entitled to the se1"Vice benefits
which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant
E rules or policy framed by the employer.

11. What to say of work charged employees even those
appointed on ad hoc basis cannot claim parity with regular '
4
employees in the matter of pay fixation, grant of higher scales
F of pay, promotion etc. In State of Haryana v. Haryana
Veterinary & AHTS Association and another (supra), a three-
Judge Bench considered the question whether service of an
employee appointed on adhoc basis can be equated with that
of regular employee for the purpose of grant of selection grade
G in terms of the policy contained in circulars dated 2nd June,
1989 and 16th May, 1990 issued by the Government of Haryana
and answered the same in negative. The facts of that case
were that one Rakesh Kumar Singla who joined service as
Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis on 4.1.1980 was appointed
on regular basis with effect from 29.8.1982 after selection by
H
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 223
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
{ ..
the Public Service Commission. He represented to the A
government for grant of selection grade on completion of 12
years service commencing from 4.1.1980. As the government
did not accede to his request, Rakesh Kumar Singla filed writ
petition in the High Court. On a reference made by the Division
Bench, the matter was placed before a bench of three-Judges. B
By majority judgment, the larger bench held that the service
">- rendered by an employee on the basis of ad hoc appointment
must be clubbed with his regular service for the purpose of
grant of selection grade in terms· of the policy framed by the
State Government. This Court reversed the judgment of the c
High Court and held:

"Coming to the circular dated 2-6-1989, issued by the
Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government
.. of Haryana, Finance Department, it appears that the
aforesaid circular had been issued for removal of D
anomalies in the pay scale of Doctors, Deputy
Superintendents and Engineers, and so far as Engineers
are concerned, which are in Class I and Class II, it was
unequivocally indicated that the revised pay scale of
Rs.3000 to Rs.4500 can be given after completion of 5 E
years of regular service and Rs.4100 to Rs.5300 after
completion of 12 years of regular service. The said
Financial Commissioner had issued yet another circular
• dated 16-5-1990, in view of certain demands made by
officers of different departments. The aforesaid _circular F
was issued after reconsideration by the Government
modifying to some extent the earlier circular of 2-6-1989,
and even in this circular it was categorically indicated that
so far as Engineers are concerned, they would get
Rs.3000 to 450 J after 5 years of regular and satisfactory G
service and selection grade in the scale of pay of Rs.4100
to Rs.5300, which is limited to the extent of 20% of the
cadre post should be given after 12 years of regular and
satisfactory service. The aforesaid two circulars are
unambiguous and unequivocally indicate that a government H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A servant would be entitled to the higher scale indicated
therein only on completion of 5 years or 12 years of regular
service and further the number of persons to be entitled
to get the selection grade is limited to 20% of the cadre
post. This being the position, we fail to understand how
B services rendered by Rakesh Kumar from 1980 to 1982,
which was purely on ad hoc basis, and was not in
accordance with the statutory rules can be taken into if

account for computation of the period of 12 years indicated
in the circular. The majority judgment of the High Court
c committed serious error by equating expression "regular
service" with "continuous service''. In our considered
opinion under the terms and conditions of the circulars
dated 2-6-1989 and 16-5-1990, the respondent Rakesh
Kumar would be entitled for being considered to have the
selection grade on completion of 12 years from 29-1-1982
D
on which date he was duly appointed against a temporary
post of Assistant Engineer on being selected by the Public
Service Commission and not from any earlier point of time.
The conclusion of the majority judgment in favour of
Rakesh Kumar, therefore, cannot be sustained."
E
The Court then referred to the provisions contained in the
Haryana Service of Engineers, Class-II, Public Works
Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970 and held:-
•
"A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of the
F
Recruitment Rules puts the controversy beyond any doubt
and the only conclusion which could be drawn from the
aforesaid Rules is that the services rendered either on an
ad hoc basis or as a stopgap arrangement, as in the case
in hand from 1980 to 1982 cannot be held to be regular
G service for getting the benefits of the revised scale of pay ...._

or of the selection grade under the government
memorandum dated 2-6-1989 and 16-5-1990, and
therefore, the majority judgment of the High Court must be
held to be contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the
H
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v. 225
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

" Recruitment Rules, consequently cannot be sustained. The A
initial letter of appointment dated 6-12-1979 pursuance to
which respondent Rakesh Kumar joined as an Assistant
Engineer on an ad hoc basis in 1980 was also placed
before us. The said appointment letter unequivocally
indicates that the offer of appointment as Assistant B
Engineer was on ad hoc basis and clauses 1 to 4 of the
said letter further provides that the appointment will be on
an ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months from the date of
joining and the salary was a fixed salary of Rs.400 p.m. in
the scale of Rs.400 to Rs.1100 and the services were c
liable to be terminated without any notice and at any time
without assigning any reason and that the appointment will
not enable the appointee any seniority or any other benefit
under the Service Rules for the time being in force and will
,_ not count towards increment in the time scale. In view of D
the aforesaid stipulations in the offer of appointment itself
we really fail to understand as to how the aforesaid period
of service rendered on ad hoc basis can be held to be
service on regular basis. The conclusion of the High Court
is contrary to the very terms and conditions stipulated in
E
the offer of appointment and, therefore, the same cannot
be sustained. The regular letter of appointment dated 29-
1-1982 in favour of Rakesh Kumar was also produced
. before us and that letter indicates that the respondent
Rakesh Kumar along with others had applied to the
Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission for being F
appointed as an Assistant Engineer and the Service
Commission after selecting the number of persons
prepared a list and appointment letters were issued by the
Government from the said list on the basis of the merit
position of different candidates. Thus the appointment of G
respondent Rakesh Kumar was a fresh appointment in
accordance with the statutory rules after the Public Service
Commission adjudged their suitability and the regular
service of the respondent Rakesh Kumar must be counted
H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A from the date he joined the post pursuant to the offer of
appointment dated 29-1-1982 and the prior service
rendered by him on ad hoc basis cannot be held to be
regular service nor can it be tagged on to the later service
for earning the benefit under the government circular dated
B 2-6-1989 as well as the clarificatory circular dated 16-5-
1990. The conclusion of the majority judgment of the High
Court, therefore, is wholly erroneous and cannot be
sustained."

12. In State of Punjab and others v. /shar Singh and
C others [(2002) 10 SCC 674) and State of Punjab and others
v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others [(2003) 11 SCC 732],
the two-Judge Benches referred to the judgment in State of
Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association (supra)
and held that adhoc service rendered by the respondents cannot
D be clubbed with their regular service for the purpose of grant
of revised pay scales, senior/selection grade, proficiency step-
up and for fixation of seniority.

13. A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes
E it clear that the benefit of time bound promotional scales was
to be given to the employees only on their completing 9/16 years
regular service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional increments
could be given only on completion of 23 years regular service.
The use of the term 'regular service' in various paragraphs of
F the scheme shows that service rendered by an employee after
regular appointment could only be counted for computation of
9/16/23 years service and the service of a temporary, ad hoc
or work charged employee cannot be counted for extending the
benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional
G increments. If the Board intended that total service rendered by
the employees irrespective of their mode of recruitment and
status should be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound
promotional scales or promotional increments, then instead of
using the expression '9/16 years regular service' or '23 years
regular service', the concerned authority would have used the
H
- PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. v.
JAGJIWAN RAM AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
227

expression '9/16 years service' or '23 years service'. However, A
the fact of the matter is that the scheme in its plainest term
embodies the requirement of 9/16 years regular service or 23
years regular service as a condition for grant of time bound
promotional scales or promotional increments as the case may
be. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the B
respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound
promotional scales I promotional increments on a date prior to
completion of 9/16/23 years regular service and the High Court
committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them
benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service. c
14. The order passed by this Court in Ravinder Kumar's
case is clearly distinguishable. In that case, counsel appearing
for the State had conceded that period during which an
.._ employee had worked on work charged basis is counted for
the purpose of grant of increment as well as for computation D
of qualifying service for pension. In view of his statement, the
Court held that there is no reason why such service should not
be counted for the purpose of giving additional increment on
completion of 8/12 years service and higher scale on
completion of 10/20 years service. The order does not contain E
any discussion on the issue whether the work charged service
can be equated or clubbed with regular service for grant of
• service benefits admissible to regular employees. Therefore,
•· the same cannot be treated as laying down any proposition of
law which can be treated as precedent for other cases. F

15. The instructions issued by the State Government on
17th July, 2002 for implementation of the order passed in
C.W.P. No.4382 of 2002, Satbir Singh and others v. State of
Haryana are also of no help to the respondents' cause. The G
;1 order passed by the High Court was binding and the same had
to be given effect to and in the absence of any stay by this
Court, the Government was bound to give effect to the same.
Even if the benefit of that order was extended to some other

H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

employees, the same cannot be relied upon for interpreting the
..
scheme framed by the Board. In any case, the view expressed
by the High Court in Satbir Singh's case (supra) cannot be
made basis for granting relief to the respondents by ignoring
the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to
herein above.

16. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned
orders are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the
respondents are dismissed. However, the parties are left to
bear their own costs.

R.P. Appeals allowed.