STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusSITA RAM AND ORS.

                    [2013) 11 S.C.R. 529


              STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.                           A
                              v.
                    SITA RAM AND ORS.
           (Civil Appeal Nos. 5411-5430 of 2009)
                    OCTOBER 29, 2013
                                                                  B
        . [G.S. SINGHVI AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

    Service Law:

     Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression)          c
Rules, 1998 - r.5(1) and (2) - Benefit under - Whether can
be granted by treating the work charge service as regular
service - Held: Cannot be granted, because as per rules, a
service can be treated as regular service only if there is
regular recruitment in accordance with the prescribed             D
procedure or rules - This is in total contrast with work-charge
service.

    The respondent-employees of the appellant-State
approached the High Court seeking benefit under
Haryana Civil Servlces (Assured Career Progression)               E
Rules, 1998, by counting their work charge service as
regular service. The same was granted by High Court.
Hence the present appeals by the State.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court                               F
     HELD: The Division Benches of the High Court
committed an error by directing the appellants to treat
work charge service of the respondents as part of regular
service for the purpose of Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Haryana
Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998.          G
The reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High
Court for granting relief to the respondents are legally
untenable, and the same are based on erroneous
                             529                                  H
   530     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2013] 11 S.C.R.


A interpretation of the expression "regular satisfactory
  service" used in Rule 5(1) and (2) of the 1998 Rules. The
  note appearing below Rule 5(2) makes it clear that the
  expression "regular satisfactory service" means
  continuous service counting towards seniority under
B Haryana Government, including continuous service in
  Punjab Government, before reorganization, commencing
  from the date on which the Government servant joins
  service after being recruited through the prescribed
  procedure or rules, etc., for regular recruitment in the
c particular cadre. It is, thus, evident that the rule making
  authority has laid emphasis on regular recruitment in
  accordance with the prescribed procedure or rules as a
  condition for treating the particular service as regular
  service. This is in total contrast to work charge service
  which is always in work charge establishment and is not
0
  preceded by regular selection made in accordance with
  any set of rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the
  Constitution or executive instructions. It is also not
  incumbent upon the competent authority to advertise the
E availability of work/post in the work charge establishment
  or send requisition to the employment exchange as per
  the requirement of the Employment Exchanges
  (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Not
  only this, the conditions of appointment of work charge
  employees are altogether different from those who are
F regularly recruited in accordance with the rules framed
  under proviso to Article 309 or executive instructions
  issued by the State under Article 162 of the Constitution
  and whose service is treated as regular service. [Paras
  11 and 18] [545-H; 546-A-G]
G
       State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman (1997) 2 SCC 517:
  1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 255; State of Haryana vs. Haryana
  Veterinary and AHTS Association (2000) 8 SCC 4: 2000 (3)
  Suppl. SCR 322; Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Jagjiwan
H Ram (2009) 3 SCC 661: 2009 (3) SCR 209; Kesar Chand
         STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                 531


vs. State of Punjab, Recent Service Judgments (1950-1988)    A
Vol.1 433 - relied on.

    Jaswant Singh vs. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 440:
1980 (1) SCR 420; State of Punjab vs. lshar Singh (2002)
10 sec 674 - referred to.                                    B
                    Case Law Reference:
  1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 255 relied on            Para 7
  2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 322     relied on         Para 7
                                                             c
   2009 (3) SCR 209           relied on         Para 7
  (1950-1988) Vol.1 433       relied on         Para 8
   1980 (1) SCR 420           referred to       Para 13
  (2002) 10 sec 674           referred to       Para 16      D

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5411-5430 of 2009.                    ·

    From the Judgment & Order dated 08.07.2004 of the High   E
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos.
12497, 13299, 17222, 17525, 17526, 17527, 18096, 153f8,
15330, 15517, 15563, 16354, 16317, 16316, 16121, 12702
of 2002, 3157, 3442, 3564 & 4266 of 2003 .
                          . WITH                             F

C.A. Nos. 5431-5441, 5442-5459, 5460-5479, 5480-5499,
5500-5516, 5517, 5518-5537, 5538, 5539, 5541, 5543, 5544,
5545 of 2009 & 912 of 2010.
                                                             G/
      Neeraj Jain, Anubha Agarwal, Ambuj Agarwal for the
· Appellants.

     Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ajay K. Singh, Sanjeev K. Saroha,
Vikas Batra, R.C. Kaushik, Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik,
Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondents.                   H
    532       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether the work charge service of
    the respondents can be treated as regular service for the
    purpose of grant of benefit under the Haryana Civil Services
    (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for short, 'the 1998
8
    Rules') is the question which arises for consideration in these
    appeals filed against the orders passed by the Division
    Benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

      2. The respondents in all the appeals except Civil Appeal
C No.5544 of 2009, which has been filed by Haryana Urban
  Development Authority, were engaged as work charge
  employees in different branches of the Public Works
  Department of the Government of Haryana between 1966 and
  1984. Their conditions of employment were governed by the
D provisions contained in PWD Code, paragraphs 1.129 and
  1.132 of which are reproduced below:

          "I I-Work-Charged Establishment

          1.129. Works establishment will include such
E         establishment as is employed upon the actual execution,
          as distinct from the general supervision, of a specific work,
          of or sub-works of a specific project, or upon the
          subordinate supervision of departmental labour, stores and
          machinery in connection with such work or sub-works,
F         provided that as an exception to the above, mistries and
          mates employed in the interests of Government on the
          technical supervision of contractors work and khalasis
          attached to subordinates for assisting them on works will
          be treated a work-charged establishment. When
G         employees borne on the temporary-establishment are
          employed on work of this nature, their pay should, for the
          time being be charged direct, to the work.

          (2) Works establishment does not include Clerks,
          Draftsman, Subordinate or extra establishment of any kind
H
     STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                        533
            [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
for the Divisional or Sub-Divisional Offices, such being        A
properly chargeable to Temporary Establishment, but
where Oak Runners are employed solely for a particular
work of a temporary nature, for a period not exceeding six
months, they may be treated as work-charged
establishment.                                                  B

(3) The Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineers are
empowered to classify as "Works" or "Temporary" those
classes of establishment about whose correct definition
there is doubt, subject to the concurrence of the Audit         C
Officer and to the proviso the general principles for
entertainment of such establishment are not infringed.

(4) Chief and Superintending Engineer are authorized to
waive the rule which requires that works establishments
must be employed on a specific work and to determine,           D
in such cases the properties in which the cost of such
establishment shall be allocated between the works
concerned.

Note - As an exception to the general rule, the cost of         E
Khalasis attached to subordinate may be charged to
annual maintenance and Repairs and other estimates in
such provision for it has been made with the sanction of
the Superintending Engineer, or the Chief Engineer,
Electricity Branch, as the case may be.
                                                                F
(5) The cost of the works establishment must be shown as
a separate sub-head of the estimate for a work.

(6) All pay bill for work-charged establishment shall be pre-
audited by the Divisional Accountant and approved by the        G
Divisional Officer before payment. Before a member of the
work-charged establishment, whose services have been
dispensed with, is settled up under paragraph 303 of the
Pubic Works Account code, the Sub-Divisional Officer
should invariably ascertain from the Divisional Office if       H
    534       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A         there are any out standings against the man.

          (7) Members of the work-charged establishment, other than
          Road Inspectors, who are engaged on the footing of
          monthly services will be subject to discharge at 10 days'
          notice except in the case of serious misconduct or gross
B
          inefficiency (when no notice will be given) or on payment
          of pay for 10 days or for such period up to this extent as
          may be due to them in lieu of notice. Should they desire
          to resign will be required to give 10 days notice or forfeit
          pay for this period or for such period up to this extent as
c         may be due to them in lieu of notice.

          1.130 to 1.131 xxx           )()()(            )()()(


          1.132. A work-charged employee is not entitled to any
D         pension, leave or travelling or other allowances except in
          the following cases :-

          (i) (a) Short casual leave upto a limit not exceeding 15 days
          in calendar year, subject to a maximum of 10 days at any
          one time, on full pay at the discretion of the Sub-Divisional
E         Officer and under ordinary rules for casual leave to
          ordinary-establishment. This leaves will not be cumulative
          and will not be given in combination with leave without pay.
          This leave will be calculated on basis of the calendar year,
          but where an appointment is made during the course of a
F         year, the amount of leave admissible will be calculated
          proportionately for the broken period.

          (b) Holidays to the community for whom a particular day
          is held sacred, restricted to five days, 'in a calendar year
G         in the case of each community, the employees concerned
          being allowed to select the religious festivals on which they
          would like to enjoy the concession; provided that not more
          than half of gang employed on roads should be absent at
          one time.
H         (c) Alternate Sundays not more than half of the
     STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                          535
            [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
establishment to be absent on any one Sunday. The above           A
concessions do not apply to casual labour on daily wages.

(ii) At the discretion of the Divisional Officer, actual
travelling expenses not exceeding a single railway fare of
the class, to which regular Government servants drawing
                                                                  8
the same pay are entitled, in case of places connected by
rail and actual travelling expenses duly supported by
original bus tickets, in case in places not connected by rail,
for journeys, performed within the Punjab or to a bordering
State or settlement in the interest of the work on which he
is employed.                                                      C

"Halting allowance should be allowed to work-charged
Establishment at the same rates as are admissible to his
counterpart in the regular establishment when a, person
spends the night away from his headquarters. No daily             D
allowance will be admissible in case the person returns to
his headquarters and does not spend the night out."

(iii) Transfer travelling allowance, 'i.e., single railway fare
or actual travelling including the cost of carriage of            E
personal effects to Road Inspectors, Road Roller Drivers
and Fireman, Mistries (including Electric Mistries), Electric
Mechanics and employees on the work-charged
establishment in the Public Health Circle for themselves
and dependent members of their families who are not
males of over 18 years of age on the occasion of their            F
transfer in cases of sheer necessity in the public interest,
subject to the following conditions: -

(a) the limits of travelling allowances relating to the cost of
carriage of personal effects and the class of railway             G
accommodation admissible to regular Government
servants of the same grades are not exceeded;

(b) the grant of travelling allowance will be at the discretion
of the Divisional Officer;
                                                                  H
    536       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A         (c) the transfer is from one place to another, except in the
          case of Road Roller Drivers and Firemen when travelling
          allowance will only be allowed for transfer from one division
          to another;

          (d) the journey performed is in the interest of work on which
B
          the man is employed and not as a disciplinary measure.

          (iv) Wound and other extraordinary pensions and gratuities
          in certain cases;

c         (v) Grain compensation allowance;

          (vi) Compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act,
          1923 and ex-gratia payment of the amount which would
          have been statutorily payable if the accident had occurred
          in British India in respect of accidents which happen to the
D         Punjab Public Works Department employees of the
          Irrigation and Buildings and Roads Branches in the tracts
          to which the Act has riot yet been-applicable.

          Note (1) - This rule does not apply to members of the
E         temporary establishment whose pay is charged to works
          under paragraph 1.131 of this Code. The leave salaries,
          travelling and other allowances of such establishment are
          regulated by the rules applicable to temporary
          establishment.
F
          Note (2) - Rules for the recovery of rent from work-
          charged establishment are contained in paragraph 3.28."

          3. With a view to give relief to the employees, who were
          stagnating on their posts due to non-availability of
G         promotional avenues, the Government of Haryana framed
          scheme dated 14.5.1991 for grant of additional
          increments to all Grade 'C' and 'D' employees on
          completion of 10 and 20 years service. Another scheme
          was introduced on 7 .8.1992 for grant of additional
H         increments to Group 'C' and 'D' employees on completion
     STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                     537
            [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of 8 and 18 years servit;e. Yet another scheme was            A
introduced by the State Government on 8.2.1994 for grant
of higher standard pay scales to Group 'C' and 'D'
employees on completion of 10 years or more and 20
years or more regular satisfactory service. After 4 years,
the Governor of Haryana framed the 1998 Rules. Rules 1,       B
3(b), 3(d), 3(e), 3(q), 3(r) and 5 of those rules read as
under:

"1. Short title, commencement and objective:- (1)
These rules may be called the Haryana Civil Services          C
(Assured Career Progression) Rules 1998.

(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force on the
first day of January, 1996, unless otherwise provided by
the Government for any class or category of persons.
                                                              D
(3) The objective of the.se rules is to provide such of
Government servants who fall within the scope of these
rules, at least two financial upgradations, including the
financial upgradation, if any, availed by such Government
servants as a consequence of the functional promotion,        E
within the corresponding prescribed period of length of
service during his entire career, as may be specified under
these rules or by the Government from time to time within
these rules, with reference to the functional pay scale of
the post on which he joined the Government service as a
                                                              F
direct recruited fresh entrant.

3. DEFINITIONS:- in these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires -

(b) "direct recruited fresh entrant" with reference to a      G
post or a Government servant means the post on which
such Government servant was recruited as a regular arid
direct recruitee in the Government service and is in
continuous employment of Government since such
recruitment;
                                                              H
    538           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A         (d) "functional pay scale" in relation to a Government
          servant means the pay scale which is prescribed for the
          post held by the Government servant. It does not mean any
          other pay scale in which the Government servant is drawing
          his pay as a personal measure to him with any other
B         justification like based on length of service, or on higher/
          additional qualification or on upgradation of pay scale due
          to any other reason.

          (e) "·first assured career progression scale" with
          reference to -
c
           (i)     Government servant means the revised scale as
                   mentioned in column 3 of Part I of Schedule I
                   against the name of post(s) in column 2 of Part I of
                   Schedule I, on which the Government servant was
D                  recruited as a direct recruited fresh entrant in the
                   Government service,

           (ii)    all other Government servants not covered in sub-
                   clause (i) above but on whom these rules apply, the
                   pay scale as mentioned in column 3 of Part II of
E
                   Schedule I against the pay scale mentioned in
                   column 2 of Part II of Schedule I, as the
                   corresponding existing scale prescribed for the
                   post against which such Government servant was
                   recruited as a direct recruited fresh entrant in the
F                  Government service.

                   Provided that the First Assured Career Progression
                   scale may also be referred to as 1st ACP scale or
                   ACP-1 scale.
G
           (q) "second assured career progression scale" with
                 reference to -

           (i)      Government servant means the revised scale as
                    mentioned in column 4 of Part I of schedule I against
H
        STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                      539
               [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
         the name of post(s) in column 2 of part I of schedule   A
         I, on which the Government servant was recruited
         as a direct recruited fresh entrant in the
         Government service;

 (ii)    all other Government servants not covered in sub-       8
         clause (i) above but on whom these rules apply, the
         pay scale as mentioned in column 4 of Part II of
         Schedule I against the pay scale mentioned in
         column 2 of Part II of Schedule I, as the
         corresponding existing pay scale prescribed for the     C
         post against which such Government servant was
         recruited as a direct recruited fresh entrant in the
         Government service:

         Provided that the Second Assured Career
         Progression Scale may also be referred to as 2nd        D
         ACP scale or ACP-11 scale.

(r) "standard pay scale" (as it is or with the prefix "First"
or "Second", as the case may be) with respect to any
Government servant means the scale of pay, other than the        E
existing pay-scale prescribed for the post on which such
Government servant is working, in which the Government
servant was drawing his pay prior to 31.12.1995 and also
any pay scale granted to him for the purposes of drawing
his pay as "pay scale as a personal measure to him" as
defined under these rules through any other order/
                                                                 F
notification of the Government or with any other reason;

5. Eligibility for Grant of ACP Scales:- (1) Every
Government seNant who, after a regular satisfactory
service for a minimum period of 10 years, if the minimum         G
period is not otherwise prescribed to be different than 10
years either in these rules or by the Government for any
class or categories of Government servant from time to
time, has not got any financial upgradation in terms of grant
of a pay scale higher than the functional pay scale              H
    540       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A         prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995, on which he was
          recruited as a direct recruited fresh entrant:-

                 (a) either as a consequence of his functional
                 promotion in the hierarchy, or
B                (b) as a consequence of the revision of pay scale
                 for the same post, or

                 (c) as a consequence of any other event through
                 which the functional pay scale of the post has been
c                upgraded, with respect to the functional pay scale
                 prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995,

          shall for the purposes of drawal of pay, be eligible for
          placement into the First ACP scale with reference to him.
D         (2) Every Government servant who, after a regular
          satisfactory service for a minimum period of 20 years, if
          the minimum period is not otherwise prescribed to be
          differeat than 20 years either in these rules or by the
          Government for any class or categories of Government
E         servant from time to time, has not got more than one
          financial upgradation in terms of grant of a pay scale higher
          than the functional pay scale prescribed for the post as on
          31.12.1995 on which he was recruited
                                         .
                                                   as a direct recruited
                                                                    '
          fresh entrant:-
F
                 (a) either as a consequence of his functional
                 promotion in the hierarchy, or

                 (b) as a consequence of the revision of pay scale
                 for the same post, or
G
                 (c) as a consequence of any other event through
                 which the functional pay scale of the post has been
                 upgraded, with respect to the functional pay scale
                 prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995,
H
      STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                      541
             [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
       shall for the purposes of drawal of pay, be eligible     A
       for placement into the Second ACP scale with
       reference to him;

       Provided that grant of ACP scale shall also be
       considered financial upgradation for the purposes        8
       of this rule.

Note: For the purposes of these rules, "regular satisfactory
service" would mean continuous service counting towards
seniority under Haryana Government, including continuous
service in Punjab Government before re-organisation,            C
commencing from the date on which the Government
servant joined his service after being recruited through the
prescribed procedure or rules etc. for regular recruitment,
in the cadre in which he is working at the time of being
considered his eligibility for grant of ACP scales under        D
these rules and further fulfilling all the requirements
prescribed for determining the suitability of grant of ACP
scales.

EXPLANATION: The ACP scale upgradation will come                E
into play only if due to functional promotion or upgradation
of scale for the same post as specified above, the
Government servant has not got the benefit of at least one
pay scale upgradation within the prescribed period of 10
years or any other prescribed period for the grant of 1st
                                                                F
ACP scale or two such financial upgradations within a
period of 20 years or within the period otherwise specified
for grant of second ACP scale. If within 10 years of service
or within the prescribed period of service for the grant of
1st ACP, the employee has already got at least one
financial upgradation or within 20 years of service, as the     G
case may be, or otherwise prescribed period of service
for the grant of second ACP scale, the Government servant
has already got at least two financial upgradations, IJenefit
of these rules will not be extended to such employees save
if otherwise provided in these rules.                           H
    542       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A         (3) For determining the eligibility of grant of ACP Scale,
          following conditions must also be fulfilled by the
          Government servant:-

                 (a} After completing the respective prescribed
                 period for eligibility for the grant of ACP scales the
B
                 Government servant should be fit to be promoted
                 to the next higher post in the functional hierarchy in
                 his cadre, but could not be functionally promoted
                 due to lack of vacancy in the promotional post in
                 the hierarchy to which he is eligible to be promoted;
c
                 (b) If such promotion involves test of any
                 departmental post or other test etc. such condition
                 should also be fulfilled by such Government servant.

D         (4) The eligibility for grant of the ACP scales shall further
          be subject to any other restriction as may be prescribed
          by the Government from time to time including the
          restriction of the number of Government servant to be
          granted the respective ACP scales in terms of percentage
          of posts in the cadre to which such ACP placements shall
E
          be limited;

          Provided that till the time such restrictions are not imposed
          by the Government -

F                (a) there shall be no restriction on the number of
                 Government servants to be granted the first or
                 second ACP scales with reference to the
                 Government servants covered in sub-rule (2) of rule
                 4.
G                (b) for the Government servants covered in sub-rule
                 (1) of rule 4, there shall be no restriction on the
                 number of Government servants for grant of first
                 ACP scale. However, the grant of the second ACP
                 scale for such Government servants as covered in
H
          STATE OF HARYANA v.. SITA RAM                     543
                 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
           sub-rule (1) of rule 4 shall be limited to 20% of the   A
           total posts in the cadre."

     4. Since there was a lot of confusion on the issue of
counting of work charge I ad-hoc service of the employees for
the purpose of grant of ACP scales, increments, etc., the State    B
Government issued office memorandums dated 15.3.2002 and
27.6.2002 and clarified that the ad-hoc and r'ork charge service
cannot be equated with regular service for the purpose of grant
of additional increments or benefit of ACP scales.

      5. Some of the work charge employees filed writ petitions    C
before the High Court for grant of benefit under the 1998 Rules.
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissed CWP Nos. 18444/2002 Prem Chand and others v.
State of Haryana and others and CWP No.18578/2002 Ved
Pal and others v. State of Haryana by observing that Rule 5(1)     D
of the 1998 Rules talks of regular satisfactory service which
cannot possibly include work charge service. However, another
Division Bench of the High Court allowed a batch of writ
petitions vide order dated 8.7.2004, the operative portion of
which reads as under:                                              E

    "For the reasons afore-stated we allow these Writ Petitions
    and.direct the State Government to consider the cases of
    the Petitioners in CWP Nos. 14400 of 2001, 1235 of 2002
    and 13749 of 2003 for payment of additional increments
    under public policies of 1992 and 1994. Further, we also
                                                                   F
    direct the State Government to consider and grant to the
    petitioners in other Writ Petitions the ACP first and second
    scales in accordance with Rules and after counting the
    services rendered by them on work charge basis. Thus,
    we also quash the show cal\8e notices issued by the            G
    Respondents for reduction of scales of the Petitioners and/
    or the orders passed after service of show cause notice
    reducing the pay scales ofthe Petitioners as well as the
    recoveries made in furtherance thereto."
                                                                   H
    544     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A       6. By relying upon the aforesaid order, other Division
    Benches of the High Court allowed similar petitions vide orders
    dated 28.4.2005, 25.8.2005, 13.9.2005, 29.11.2005 and
    7.12.2006.

B      7. Shri Neeraj Jain, learned senior counsel for the
  appellants argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set
  aside because the same are contrary to the law laid down by
  this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman (1997) 2 SCC
  517, State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS
C Association (2000) 8 SCC 4 and Punjab State Electricity
  Board v. Jagjiwan Ram (2009) 3 SCC 661. Learned senior
  counsel argued that work charge service cannot be treated as
  part of regular service because there is a marked distinction
  between appointments made on work charge basis and regular
  basis. He pointed out that work charge employee is engaged
D without any selection whereas regular appointment is always
  preceded by regular selection made in accordance with the
  relevant rules or administrative instructions after issuing
  appropriate advertisement and sending requisition to the
  employment exchange. Shri Jain submitted that the directions
E given by the Division Benches of the High Court ar.e legally
  unsustainable because while entertaining the claim of work
  charge employees for grant of benefit under the 1998 Rules,
  they completely overlooked the distinction between two types
  of services. Learned senior counsel distinguished order dated
F 31.10.2000 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5740-
  5741/1997 State of Haryana and others v. Ravinder Kumar and
  others by pointing out that the said order was not based on the
  interpretation of Rule 5 of the 1998 Rules.

G        8. Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the
    respondents argued that the order passed in Ravinder Kumar's
    case has direct bearing on the respondents' case and the High
    Court rightly relied upon the same for declaring that work charge
    service should be treated as regular service for the purpose of
    ACP scales. Shri Garg also relied upon Rule 3.17 (ii) of the
H
        · STATE OF HARYANA v.. SITA RAM                       545
                 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II, the judgment of the Full         A
Bench of the High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab,
Recent Service Judgments (1950-1988) Vol.I, 433 and argued
that once work charge service is treated as part of qualifying
service for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits, there can be
no rationale or justification not to count that service for the      B
purpose of grant of ACP scales.

     9. We have considered the respective arguments. A
careful reading of order dated 8.7.2004, which is under
challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.5411-5430/2009 and batch
shows that after taking cognizance of the judgment of the Full       C
Bench in Kesar Chand's case, the Division Bench observed
as under:

     "In the light of the above observations of the Full Bench of
     this Court we are of the considered view that these work        D
     charged employees have been serving for a considerable
     period in their respective departments. They were getting
     the regular pay scales as provided under the Rules. This
     class of employees was also exposed to hostility of
     stagnation. Thus, to decline the benefit of providing           E
     increments under the schemes would patently be unfair and
     unjust. The physical reality that emerges in the recent time
     is that these employees are also the regular emp.loyees
     of the State of Haryana and have been continuously
     serving the State for more than the prescribed period. The      F
     mere fact that some part of their service is on work-
     charged basis, though under the conditions stipulated in
     the code~ would not divest them of a legitimate right which
     otherwise accrues in their favour."

      10. The Division Bench then relied upon the order passed       G
by this Court in Ravinder Kumar's case and held that the writ
petitioners are entitled to relief in similar terms.

    11. In our opinion, the reasons recorded by the Division
Bench of the High Court for granting relief to the respondents       H
    546      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A   are legally untenable and the impugned orders are liable to be
    set aside because the same are based on erroneous
    interpretation of the expression "regular satisfactory service"
    used in Rule 5(1) and (2) of the 1998 Rules. The note
    appearing below Rule 5(2) makes it clear that the expression
B   "regular satisfactory service" means continuous service
    counting towards seniority under Haryana Government,
    including continuous service in Punjab Government, before
    reorganization, commencing from the date on which the
    Government servant joins service after being recruited through
C   the prescribed procedure or rules, etc., for regular recruitment
    in the particular cadre. It is, thus, evident that the rule making
    authority has laid emphasis on regular recruitment in
    accordance with the prescribed procedure or rules as a
    condition for treating the particular service as regular service.
    This is in total contrast to work charge service which is always
0
    in work charge establishment and is not preceded by regular
    selection made in accordance with any set of rules framed
    under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or executive
    instructions. It is also not incumbent upon the competent
    authority to advertise the availability of work/post in the work
E   charge establishment or send requisition to the employment
    exchange as per the requirement of the Employment Exchanges
    (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Not only this,
    the conditions of appointment of work charge employees are
    altogether different from those who are regularly recruited in
F   accordance with the rules framed under proviso to Article 309
    or executive instructions issued by the State under Article 162
    of the Constitution and whose service is treated as regular
    service.

G       12. The distinction between work charge establishment
    and regular establishment was aptly highlighted in Kunji
    Raman's case in the following words:

          "A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this
          Court in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC
H
     STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                        547
            [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
440 broadly means an establishment of which the                  A
expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff,
are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of
employees who are borne on a work-charged
establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-
head of the estimated cost of the works. The work-charged        B
employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their
appointments are made for the execution of a specified
work. From the very nature of their employment. their
services automatically come to an end on the completion
of the works for the sole purpose of which they are              c
employed. Thus a work-charged establishment is
materially and qualitatively different from a regular
establishment.

A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular
establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and       D
continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent
upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme
or a "work" and availability of funds for executing it. So far
as employees engaged in work-charged establishments
are concerned. not only their recruitment and service            E
conditions but the nature of work and duties to be
performed by them are not 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                 F
employed on those establishments thus form two separate
and distinct classes. For that reason, if a separate set of
rules are framed for the persons engaged in the work-
charged establishment and the general rules applicable to
persons working on the regular establishment are not             G
made applicable to them, it cannot be said that they are
treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by the
Government."

                                         (emphasis added}
                                                                 H
    548       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A         13. In Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram
    (supra), this Court considered whether work charge service is
    synonymous with regular service and whether two services can
    be clubbed for grant of time bound promotional scale/increment
    etc., referred to the judgments in Jaswant Singh v. Union of
B   India (1979) 4 sec 440, Kunji Raman's case and observed:

          "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
c         shown under 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/
D         recruitment of work-charged employees.· their pay 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
E         responsibilities are also substantially different than those
          of regular employees.

          The work-charged employees can claim protection under
          the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any
F         particular statute but they cannot be treated on a par with
          the employees of regular establishment. They can neither
          claim regularisation of service as of right nor can they claim
          pay scales and other financial benefits on a par with regular
          employees. If the service of a work-charged employee is
          regularised under any statute or a scheme framed by the
G
          employer. then he becomes member of regular
          establishment from the date of regularisation. His service
          in the work-charged establishment cannot be clubbed with
          service in a regular establishment unless a specific
          provision to that effect is made either in the relevant
H
          STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                     549
                 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
    statute or the scheme of regularisation. In other words. if   A
    the statute or scheme under which service of workccharged
    employee is regularised does not provide for counting of
    past 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       B
    posts, fixation of pay in the higher scales. grant of
    increments, etc."

                                            (emphasis added)

      14. We may now advert to the judgment in State of C
Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association
(supra). The facts of that case were that one Rakesh Kumar
Singla, who joined service as Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc
basis on 4.1.1980, was appointed on regular basis with effect
from 29.8.1982 after selection by the Public Service D
Commission. He represented to the Government for grant of
selection grade on completion of 12 years' service
commencing from 4.1.1980. Having failed to convince the
competent authority to accept his plea, Rakesh Kumar Singla
filed a writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench, which E
heard the matter was of the view that the service rendered by
the appellant on the basis of an ad-hoc appointment cannot be
counted as part of regular service. However, keeping in view
an earlier judgment in which a contrary view was expressed,
the Division Bench made a reference to a three Judge Bench. F
By a 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 G
majority and observed:

    "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             H
    550       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A          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 years
B          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
c          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 Rs 4500 after 5 years of regular and satisfactory
          service and selection grade in the scale of pay of Rs 4100
D
          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
          servant would be entitled to the higher scale indicated
E         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
          services rendered by Rakesh Kumar from 1980 to 1982,
F         which was purely on ad hoc basis, and was not in
          accordance with the statutory rules can be taken into
          account for computation of the period of 12 years indicated
          in the circular. The majority judgment of the High Court
          committed serious error by equating expression 'regular
G         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
H         on which date he was duly appointed against a temporary
          STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                      551
                 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
    post of Assistant Engineer on being selected by the Public     A
    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."

                                            (emphasis added)
                                                                   B
The Court then referred to 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         c
    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        0
    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
                                                                   E
    Recruitment Rules, consequently cannot be sustained. The
    initial letter of appointment dated 6-12-1979 pursuant 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           F
    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           G
    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      H
    552       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 11 S.C.R.


A         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 th~ very terms and conditions stipulated in
B         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
c          Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission for being
          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
D         position of different candidates. Thus the appointment of
          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
E         from the date he joined the post pursuant to the offer of
          appointment da.ted 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
          2-6-1989 as well as the clarificatory Circular dated 16-5- ·
F
          1990. The conclusion of the majority judgment of the High
          Court, therefore, is wholly erroneous and cannot be
          sustained."

      15. Ravinder Kumar's case, which was earlier tagged with
G State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS
  Association's case, was de-linked from the main batch of the
    matters and was disposed of in the following terms:

          "Delay condoned in SLPs.
H
     STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                         553
            [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
These batch of cases were delinked while hearing an              A
another batch of appeals from the same State, which were
disposed of by us by Judgment dated 19th Sept. 2000. It
is conceded by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the State
that in these cases we are concerned with employees who
had been engaged initially on work charge basis and later        8
on they were regularised and brought into the cadre of the
service. It is also not disputed by the Ld. Counsel
appearing for the State that this period which the
employees has rendered as work charge basis count for
the purpose of the increment in the cadre as well as the         C
qualifying service for the pension. We, therefore, see no
justification in not counting their period for the purpose of
giving additional increment on completion of 8 and 18
years of service as well as 10 and 20 years of service for
getting higher scale as per the Govt, circular, which
obviously are intended to avoid stagnation in a particular       D
grade. In that view of the matter, we see no justification for
our interference with the impugned order of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. These appeals and SLPs,
accordingly stand dismissed."
                                                                 E
It is admitted before us that after the above order, the State
filed review application before the Hon'ble Apex Court
against this order dated 31.10.2000 which was also
dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. ·
                                                                 F
Further, it will be useful to notice that another Division
Bench of this Court following the above Full Bench is Kesar
Chand's case (supra) granted relief to the Petitioners
similarly places like the Petitioners of the present case
and directed the Respondents to consider their service on
work-charge basis towards computing total service of 8/          G
18 years for grant of benefit under these schemes. The
order passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 18429
of 1996 titled as Banta Ram and others Versus State of
Haryana and others, decided on 6.2.1997, attained finality.
                                                                 H
    554       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2013) 11 S.C.R.


A         Similar relief was also granted by a Division Bench of this
          Court following Banta Ram's case in the case of Babu
          Ram Versus State of Haryana, CWP No. 2225 of 1997,
          decided on 29.4.1997, and the Special Leave Petition
          preferred by the State in the case of Babu Ram was also
B         dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 21.1.2002. In
          view of the above settled position of law, thus, we conclude
          that the Respondents are obliged to count the service
          rendered by the Petitioners no work-charge basis under
          the State itself if the said service is otherwise satisfactory.
          Consequently, we answer submissions no. 1 and 3
c         aforenoticed, against the State."

       16. In Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram
  (supra), this Court considered a question substantially similar
  to the one raised in these appeals. The Punjab State Electricity
D Board introduced a scheme for giving time bound promotional
  scales/increments on completion of 9/16/23 years of regular
  service. The scheme was circulated vide office order dated
  23.4.1990. The respondents, who were engaged as work
  charge employees between 1971 and 1993 and were
E appointed on regular basis between 1979 and 1999, filed writ
  petitions for grant of promotional scales/increments by
  contending that their work charge service should be added to
  the regular service. The Division Bench of the High Court
  accepted their plea by relying upon the order passed in State
F of Haryana v. Ravinder Kumar. After noticing distinction
  between work charge establishment and regular establishment
  as also the judgments in State of Haryana v. Haryana
  Veterinary and AHTS Association (supra) and State of Punjab
  v. lshar Singh (2002) 10 SCC 674, the Division Bench
G observed:
          "A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes 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
H
          STATE OF HARYANA v. SITA RAM                      555
                 [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
    promotional increments could be given only on completion       A
    of 23 years' regular service. The use of the term "regular
    service" in various paragraphs of the scheme shows that
    service rendered by an employee after regular
    appointment could only be counted for computation of 91
    16/23 years' service and the service of a temporary, ad        B
    hoc or work-charged employee cannot be counted for
    extending the benefit of time-bound promotional scales or
    promotional 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       c
    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 authority concerned would have used
    the expression "9/16 years' service" or "23 years' service".
                                                                   D
    However, 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."
                                                                   E
The order passed in Ravinder Kumar's case was distinguished
and it was held that the same cannot be treated as precedent
for other cases. This is evinced from paragraph 22 of the
judgment, which is extracted below:
                                                                   F
    "The order passed by this Court in Ravinder Kumar case
    is clearly distinguishable. In that case, counsel appearing
    for the State had conceded that the period during which
    an employee had worked on work-charged basis is
    counted for the purpose of grant of increment as well as       G
    for computation 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'
                                                                   H
    556      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 11 S.C.R.


A         service. The order does not contain 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
B         which can be treated as precedent for other cases."

                                                   (emphasis added)

       17. We reiterate that even though Ravinder Kumar's case
  was de-linked from the batch of matters decided vide judgment
C in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS
  Association (supra) and was independently decided, the same
  cannot be relied upon for grant of benefit of ACP scales under
  the 1998 Rules or time bound promotional scales or additional
  increments by counting work charge or ad-hoc service where
D the rules/scheme provide that the employee must have
  rendered regular service for a particular period.

       18. On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the
  Division Benches of the High Court committed an error by
E directing the appellants to treat work charge service of the
  respondents as part of regular service for the purpose of Rule
  5(1) and (2) of the 1998 Rules.

        19. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned
    orders are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the
F   respondents are dismissed.

    K.K.T.                                         Appeals allowed.