STATE OF HARYANA . vs HET RAM . — C.A. No. 5500 - 5516/2009

Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010043912005

Filing Date

23-Feb-2005

Registration No

C.A. No. 5500 - 5516/2009

Diary Number

4391/2005

Order Date

29-Oct-2013

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA .

    Adv. KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HET RAM .

    Adv. R. C. KAUSHIK MRS. VIPIN GUPTA KAILASH CHAND (Dead / Retired / Elevated) NIDHI PREM MALHOTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Oct-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 23-Oct-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 20-Sep-2013
  5. 09-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 30-Jul-2013
  7. 17-Jan-2013
  8. 08-Oct-2012
  9. 20-Jun-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 06-Jun-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 22-Jan-2010
  12. 07-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 24-Jul-2009
  14. 24-Jul-2009
  15. 09-Jul-2009
  16. 13-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 23-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 23-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 23-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 16-Jan-2009
  21. 22-Aug-2008
  22. 09-May-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 04-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 21-Feb-2008
  25. 13-Dec-2007
  26. 04-Dec-2007
  27. 24-Sep-2007
  28. 19-Sep-2007
  29. 03-Aug-2007
  30. 01-Dec-2006
  31. 15-Sep-2006
  32. 28-Aug-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  33. 14-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  34. 07-Jul-2006
  35. 17-Apr-2006
  36. 24-Feb-2006
  37. 10-Feb-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 13-Jan-2006
  39. 08-Aug-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 21-Jul-2005
  41. 21-Jul-2005
  42. 19-Jul-2005
  43. 04-Apr-2005
  44. 04-Apr-2005
  45. 07-Mar-2005
  46. 04-Mar-2005
  47. 23-Feb-2005

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 5500 - 5516/2009

  48. 14-Feb-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Haryana v. Het Ram (C.A. No. 5500-5516/2009) The Supreme Court held that work-charge service cannot be counted as regular service for ACP (Assured Career Progression) scale benefits under the 1998 Rules. The Court set aside High Court orders that had directed the State to treat work-charge employees' prior service as regular service. The distinction between work-charge and regular recruitment was deemed material; work-charge service requires no statutory selection procedure and ends upon project completion, unlike regular service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case