CWP No. 11429-CAT of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11429-CAT of 2011 Date of Decision: July 06, 2011 Neelam Narwal …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 10.05.2011 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the ad hoc service from 21.12.1983 to 16.01.1986 as Clerk against the post of Junior Scale Stenographer would not qualify to be counted for the purposes of seniority and promotion to a higher post. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that although regular procedure for appointment to the post of Clerk was followed but no post of Clerk was available till the date of regularisation on 16.01.1986. It is well settled that once an incumbent is not appointed against the cadre post when he could claim seniority from the date when he is CWP No. 11429-CAT of 2011 -2- adjusted against the cadre post. In the present case, petitioner was adjusted against the cadre post of Clerk only on 16.01.1986 then such a post became available. Despite the fact that the procedure for her appointment consisting Article 14 and 16 was followed, she cannot be held entitled to claim benefit of salary rendered by her on 21.12.1983 to 16.01.1986. The order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and does not deserve to be admitted. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 06, 2011 Atul