CWP No.10051 of 1993 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 14.12..2009 Tota Ram ... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.SS Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was engaged as SS Master on ad hoc basis in the Education Department, Haryana, vide order dated 02.12.1981 and was posted in Sirsa District. He continued to serve upto 1984 when his services were dispensed with on account of summer vacation. The petitioner had challenged the order of his relieving from service in a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 14.11.1984 and Special Leave Petition filed therefrom was also disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.01.1986 (Annexure P-1). Vide the aforesaid order, a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rattan Lal and another Vs. State of Haryana, 1985 (4) SCC, 43. It is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner was taken back into service on 19.02.1986 and joined his duties at G.H.S. Dhanoor District Sirsa. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to CWP No.10051 of 1993 : 2 : Mohindergarh District. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for treating ad hoc service from 1981 to 1986 for the purposes of seniority, increments and other consequential benefits including the salary for the summer vacations. The petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit in this regard in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Narnaul. However, the plaint of the said suit was returned back to the petitioner for want of jurisdiction of that Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner stands regularised. The claim of the petitioner for summer vacation salary is governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Lal's case (supra). So far the claim of the petitioner for granting ad hoc service benefits like seniority, increments etc., is concerned, the same is not sustainable. The seniority has to be accorded from the date of substantive appointment in the cadre of service. Similarly, the claim of grant of increments is also not permissible under the rules. Ad hoc service can only be counted for the purposes of certain pensionary benefits in accordance with rules. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the salary etc. to the petitioner in terms of Rattan Lal's case (supra) and treat the ad hoc period of service rendered by the petitioner for the purposes of qualifying service at the time of his retirement, if permissible. No costs. 14.12.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE