C.W.P. No. 15018 of 1989 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15018 of 1989 Date of Decision: Feb. 16, 2010 Sukhwant Singh and others .................................... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ............................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. G.C.Dhuriwala, Advocate with Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioners have prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to give them the benefit of adhoc service rendered by them for the purpose of seniority, promotion and other consequential service benefits. The petitioners were appointed as Teachers/Masters on adhoc basis in the Department of Education, Punjab. Each of the petitioner worked on adhoc basis for more than two years. Ultimately, the petitioners were appointed on regular basis as Teachers/Masters. The Association of Teachers made a representation on 2.11.1987 to the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab, wherein they claimed the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of promotion, seniority, increments and other service benefits. C.W.P. No. 15018 of 1989 [ 2 ] However, the representation was not decided. It has been averred in the writ petition that the benefit of adhoc service towards increment only was given to the petitioners in a case titled as Des Raj v. State of Punjab (C.W.P. No. 4468 of 1986). On the basis of the aforementioned case, the petitioners have prayed that they be also granted the benefit of promotion, seniority etc. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of seniority, promotion and other service benefits and that the benefit of adhoc service towards increment only has already been granted to them. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of counting the adhoc service rendered by them towards seniority, promotion etc. The aforementioned view is taken on the basis of judgment in Davinder Bathla and others v. Union of India and others 1998(3) RSJ 161 wherein the Apex Court has held that the adhoc service rendered by an adhoc employee cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre, even though, he was regularly absorbed in the job subsequently. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 16.2.2010 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE