CWP NO. 7972 -CAT of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 7972-CAT of 2004 Date of Decision: 28.07. 2008 Sohan ...... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Vijay Takhi, Advocate, for Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Awasthi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. **** Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner claims that his ad-hoc service as Material Checking Clerk (for short MCC) with effect from 17.02.1980 till the date of his regularisation i.e. 09.05.1988 be counted for the purpose of seniority. Secondary claim has also been made to the cancellation of screening test/suitability test held on 09.05.1984. The Central Administrative Tribunal before whom he filed the Original Application, rejected his claim for counting of ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority on the basis of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme CWP NO. 7972 -CAT of 2004 2 Court as well as by relying on para 302 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I (1989). In State of W.B. V. Aghore Nath Dey (1993) 3SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “ There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously, and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the post has to be initially appointed ' according to Rules'. The corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that 'where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to the rules and made as a stop- gap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority'. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stopgap arrangement. The case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority.” We find no reasons to differ with the well considered view of the Tribunal. As regards the claim of the petitioner in respect of test held on CWP NO. 7972 -CAT of 2004 3 09.05.1984, the Tribunal has rightly held that the said claim was barred by inordinate delay. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this petition and consequently dismiss the same , however,with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE July 28, 2008 sunita