Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Raj Kumar vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 8 May, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064368
RSA-2428-1997 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
226 RSA-2428-1997
Date of decision:08.05.2024
RAJ KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VS.
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ANR
... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms. Gauri C. Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he joined service as a
Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with the defendants on ad-hoc basis on
03.11.1976 and his service was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1978. He filed a
suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to count his service
from the initial date of appointment for the purpose of seniority and
promotion.
3. Upon notice, suit has been contested by the defendants by
filing a written statement stating that ad-hoc service is not liable to be
counted under the service rules framed by the defendants. On the basis of
the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after they led
evidence, Trial Court by judgment 05.10.1994, decreed the suit. In
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064368
RSA-2428-1997 -2-
appeal preferred by the defendants, the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court was reversed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot, by
judgment dated 08.05.1997. Plaintiff-appellant is before this Court in the
above background.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. The issue as to whether ad-hoc service is liable to be counted
for the purposes of promotion and seniority is no longer res-integra and
has been settled in plethora of judgments.
6. In Rashi Mani Mishra and others Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and others (2021) 17 SCC 399, Supreme Court has held that
ad-hoc appointment cannot be treated as substantive appointment and
services rendered by ad-hoc appointees prior to their regularization
cannot be counted for purpose of seniority. After exhaustive discussion
of the case law, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Parmod Kumar
and others Versus State of Haryana and others 2018 (4) PLR 818, has
held that the period of ad-hoc/work charge/temporary service cannot be
counted towards seniority before the date of regularization as an
employee becomes a member of service for the first time on
regularization. This judgment has been affirmed by a Division Bench of
this Court in Harish Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and
others Law Finder Doc Id #2160610 and SLP (Civil) Diary
No.16439/2023, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on
28.07.2023.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064368
RSA-2428-1997 -3-
7. Insofar as the present case is concerned, a perusal of the
appointment letter, Ex.P-1, produced by the plaintiff shows that he was
appointed on ad-hoc basis on an application given by him. It is evident
that his entry into service was through a backdoor. Although, in terms of
the regularization policy of the Government, he was subsequently
regularized, but service rendered as an ad-hoc employee cannot be
counted for the purpose of seniority or for promotion. Counsel for the
appellant has not been able to refer to any statutory rule to support the
claim. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the
Courts below, which do not call for any interference.
8. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs.
08.05.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
