Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Pb vs Ajit Kaur on 2 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044509
RSA-1967-1994 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:044509
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211 RSA-1967-1994 (O&M)
Date of Decision :02.04.2024
State of Punjab and others ...Appellants
Versus
Ajit Kaur ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab for the appellant-State.
Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. Present regular second has been filed against the judgment and
decree of the Court below by which, the judgment and decree of the trial
Court has been set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has
been allowed.
2. Certain facts may be noticed for the correct appreciation of the
issue in hand.
3. The respondent-plaintiff namely, Ajit Kaur appointed as Clerk-
cum-Receptionist with the respondent-department on 23.12.1972 on
contractual basis for a period of six months. The said appointment was
extended time and again and ultimately, she was absorbed on regular basis
w.e.f 02.08.1978 as Clerk. After getting absorbed, the respondent-plaintiff
claimed the benefit of seniority in the cadre of clerk from the date of her
initial appointment i.e. 23.12.1972 and as the said benefit was not being
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044509
RSA-1967-1994 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:044509
extended to her, she filed a civil suit claiming the benefit that she be treated
in the cadre of clerk from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 23.12.1972
and be given seniority for the adhoc service, which she had rendered from
23.12.1972 to 02.08.1978.
4. The trial Court after considering the facts and evidence which
had come on record, dismissed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff vide
judgment and decree dated 14.01.1993.
5. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial
Court, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower Appellate
Court, which appeal came to be decided on 08.12.1993, whereby,
judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 14.01.1993 was set aside
holding that the services rendered by the respondent-plaintiff on adhoc basis
from 23.12.1972 to 02.08.1978 be treated as valid service for the purpose of
counting her seniority in the cadre of clerk.
6. The said judgement and decree of the lower Appellate Court
dated 08.12.1993 is under challenge in the present regular second appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that it is a
conceded fact that the respondent-plaintiff was initially appointed for a
period of six months on contractual basis on 23.12.1972, which
appointment continued by giving extensions on the same terms and
conditions and it was only on 02.08.1978, the petitioner came to be
absorbed on the post of clerk on regular basis, from which date, she has
already been given seniority hence, the grant of benefit of adhoc service
rendered by the respondent-plaintiff for the purpose of seniority is not only
contrary to the rules governing the service but also contrary to the settled
principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044509
RSA-1967-1994 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:044509
No.6026-6028-2021 titled as Malook Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
and others, decided on 28.09.2021.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that once
the respondent-plaintiff continued working without any break from
23.12.1972 to 02.08.1978 when her services were regularized, the period of
adhoc service cannot be ignored for the purpose of grant of benefit of
seniority and other benefits, hence, the lower Appellate Court has rightly
granted the said benefit of seniority to the respondent-plaintiff and the same
is liable to be upheld.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
10. The question of law raised in the present appeal that as to
whether contractual/adhoc service rendered by an employee prior to his/her
regularization can be taken into account as qualifying service for the
purpose of seniority or not, has already been decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Malook Singh (supra) wherein, it has been held
that contractual/adhoc service rendered by an employee cannot be taken into
account for the grant of seniority in case the adhoc appointment was not
made after following due process as envisaged under the rules and the
benefit of adhoc service can only be given for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
11. In the present case, respondent-plaintiff is claiming benefit of
adhoc service, which she had rendered with the respondent-department from
23.12.1972 to 02.08.1978, which benefit has been allowed by the Lower
Appellate Court contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Malook Singh (supra) hence, the same
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044509
RSA-1967-1994 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:044509
is to be treated as perverse. No evidence that initial appointment of the
plaintiff-respondent was made after following due process has been brought
to the notice of this Court.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has not been able
to differentiate that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Malook Singh (Supra) is not applicable in the case of the respondent-
plaintiff so as to deny her the benefit as being claimed by her.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as recorded
hereinbefore, judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated
08.12.1993 is set aside being perverse to the settled principle of law noticed
in Malook Singh (supra) and the judgment and decree of the trial Court
dated 14.01.1993 is restored and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is
dismissed.
14. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also
disposed of.
April 02, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
