LPA No.1776 of 2011 (O&M) (1) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.09.2011 The Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited and another ... Appellants Vs. Ram Phal and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.SS Dalal, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. PERMOD KOHLI, J. C.M. Nos.4774 and 4773 of 2011 are allowed. Delay in filing as also in refiling the appeal, is condoned. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.11.2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.8025 of 2004 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and a direction has been issued for grant of seniority and promotion by counting ad hoc service rendered by him. LPA No.1776 of 2011 (O&M) (2) Briefly stated, the facts as emerged from the record which led to the filing of the present appeal are that respondent No.1 was appointed as a Clerk with the Karnal Primary Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Karnal, on 09.10.1972, on temporary basis. His services were extended from time to time and ultimately regularised on 27.07.1974. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition claiming parity with his co- employees, namely, Prahlad Singh, Keshav Chander, Hoshiar Singh, Satinder Kumar and Jagdish Parshad, who were appointed along with respondent No.1 and on their regularisation, they were granted benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority and promotion pursuant to the judgment dated 01.09.1993 passed by this Court in CWP No.15979 of 1991 (Prahlad Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others). Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.01.1996. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the aforesaid circumstances and by holding that respondent No.1 cannot be treated differently than his co-employees appointed along with him, allowed the writ petition. Mr. Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the service conditions of the employees are governed by Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, whereunder the ad hoc service rendered is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was recruited prior to the enforcement of the aforesaid rules and his co-employees have been granted benefit of seniority by counting the ad hoc service. Thus, the rules subsequently framed can not take away any right of the respondent LPA No.1776 of 2011 (O&M) (3) which has already accrued. In view of the above, we do not find any valid ground to interfere in the judgment. The present Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) 28.09.2011 JUDGE BLS Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/NO