-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 1045 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 20, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 1045 of 2009 (O&M). Jaswinder Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate, for Dr.P.K.Sekhon, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.3042-C of 2009. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal is condoned. -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1045 of 2009 (O&M). Regular Second Appeal No.1045 of 2009. Jaswinder Kaur (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby her suit for declaration that she was entitled to have the period of her ad hoc service counted towards seniority on her regularization of service in the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short `the Board) and with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to refix her salary after counting her ad hoc service towards the seniority on her regularization of service etc. was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff joined the Board as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C) on ad hoc basis on 23.7.1976; that the plaintiff remained on ad hoc basis from 23.7.1976 to 19.12.1980; and that presently the plaintiff is working as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C) with the Board. The grievance of the plaintiff is that her ad hoc service as L.D.C has not been considered by the Board while assigning her seniority in the service. In the case of R.S. Garg V. State of U.P and others, 2006 (3) Services Cases Today 681, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of reckoning seniority the ad hoc service would be taken into consideration only if prior to the appointment of the employee the authorities had complied -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1045 of 2009 (O&M). with the statutory requirements of selecting the candidate. In the instant case, the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved on record that she was appointed as L.D.C on ad hoc basis after following the procedure for the appointment prescribed in the rules. It has also not been pleaded as to what were the rules governing the ad hoc service at the time when the plaintiff was appointed as such i.e whether any prior approval of the State Service Commission was required for the purpose or not. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove her entitlement to get the relief claimed in this case. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 20, 2011. JUDGE ak