CWP No.13311 of 1991(O&M) and connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No.13311 of 1991(O&M) Date of Decision:19.12.2011 Jang Singh, Clerk, Forest Department, South Circle, Patiala and others. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government, Punjab, Development & Forest Department, Chandigarh and another. ... Respondents (2) CWP No.13206 of 1989(O&M) Karamjit Kaur, Hindi Teacher, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Thikriwala, Distt. Sangrur and others. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through the Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Education Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents (3) CWP No.404 of 1992(O&M) Bant Singh, Clerk, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh and others. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Transport, Chandigarh and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate and Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to CWP No.13311 of 1991(O&M) and connected cases [2] see the judgment? YES 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The point for consideration in all the 3 writ petitions is the entitlement of the petitioners for counting the ad hoc service to finalize the issue of seniority. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers me to two decisions: (i) “Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(2) PLR 223” in which it has been held that the period of service in work charged establishment when it was regularized, the number of years of service must be counted for pensionary benefits. (ii) “Hari Chand v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and others, 2005(4) SLR 215” in which it has been held that the qualifying service for the purpose of pension shall take into account also the service rendered by a person as a daily wage earner. 2. The issue of counting of ad hoc service or work charged service or service as a daily-wager for the purpose of pension is wholly different from the purpose of reckoning the said service for the purpose of seniority. For computation of seniority, it is invariably the years of service in regular employment and consequently, an ad hoc officiation cannot be relevant. The decisions cited by the learned counsel cannot, therefore, be applied. 3. The issue of whether ad hoc service could be counted for the purpose of seniority was specifically a subject of reference in a subsequent case in “Chambel Singh v. State of Haryana, ILR (1995) 1 P&H 75” and still later a Division Bench ruling of this Court in “Rakesh Miglani v. State of Haryana, (1994) 108 PLR 576”. This issue has also been concluded by several decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. CWP No.13311 of 1991(O&M) and connected cases [3] Please see K. Madhavan and another v. Union of India and others, (2000) 7 SCC 561; Suraj Prakash Gupta and others v. State of J&K and others, (2000) 7 SCC 561; Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jagjiwan Ram and others, (2009) 3 SCC 661; and Union of India and another v. Lalita S. Rao, (2001) 5 SCC 384, where it has been held that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority. The only exceptional situation would be when at hoc service is itself a method of recruitment sanctioned by the relevant rules that give place to regularization after a period of ad hoc employment. I have not been shown through any such rules governing the case for the petitioners to allow for such appointment on ad hoc basis to entitle them to contend that such ad hoc service should also be counted for the purpose of reckoning seniority. The petitioners' case cannot obtain favourable consideration under such circumstances and, therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. DECEMBER 19, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE