BBMB’s deputation staff not entitled to circular benefits, rules HC

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 30

Acting on a writ petition filed against the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) by state government employees working with the board as superintending engineers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said they were not entitled to have ad hoc or work charged service counted towards the grant of proficiency step-up and time-bound promotional scales.

The benefits relate to the completion of nine and 16 years of service with the BBMB in terms of board circular dated June 26, 1992. It provided for counting ad hoc or work charged service to the BBMB employees.

The petitioners had claimed that a Division Bench had already considered the claim of similar officers and had allowed the counting of ad hoc or work charged service of even the state government employees working with the BBMB on transfer or deputation basis by holding they were covered by the board circular.

Contesting the petitioners’ claim on BBMB’s behalf, Rajesh Garg, senior advocate, and Sumit Gupta, counsel, contended that earlier judgements did not appropriately consider the circular’s relevant clause. Therefore, the judgements could not be held binding precedent in the present petitioners’ case.

It was contended there were two sets of employees in the BBMB — those recruited by the BBMB and those working on transfer or deputation basis from partner states. The circular’s purpose was to grant benefit of counting ad hoc or work charged service towards the grant of proficiency step-up and time-bound promotional scales only to employees recruited by the BBMB itself and not on transfer or deputation basis.

It was held by the HC that the petitioners were state government employees. Since the state government did not provide for counting of ad hoc or work charged service towards the grant of proficiency step-up or time-bound promotional scales, the petitioners could not claim the circular benefit.

Justice PB Bajanthri asserted, “The petitioners have failed to point out that their services were absorbed in the BBMB to claim any benefit of circular dated June 26, 1992. I am of the view that petitioners’ lien would be still in the Irrigation Department, State of Haryana… The petitioners have not pointed out any statutory regulation, government order or circular by which ad hoc service rendered in the Irrigation Department, Haryana, is to be counted towards grant of step up and time-bound promotions. On the contrary, there is a prohibition that service rendered on ad hoc basis does not count for the purpose of grant of proficiency step-up.”