IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19993 of 2011 1. Dilip Kumar Son Of Late Dhiren Kumar Resident Of Village-Korha, Police Station-Korha, District-Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department Having His Office In Vishweshsaraiya Bhavan, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary Having His Office In Vishweshsaraiya Bhavan, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. 3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Road Construction Department Having His Office In Vishweshsaraiya Bhavan, Police Station- Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. 4. The Executive Engineer, Road Division, Road Construction Department, Purnea. 5. The Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Purnea. ---------------------------------- 2. 15.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.7.2010 holding the post of Assistant Engineer. He seeks the relief for computing the period of his service from 31.8.1008 to 10.5.1982 for purposes of pension reckoning it as pensionable service also. It is submitted that the petitioner who possessed the qualification of Diploma for the post of Junior Engineer was so appointed on 28.8.1981 ad hoc for six months. This was extended for another six months culminating in an order appointing him as a Junior Engineer substantively on 10.5.1982. Since there was continuity in service the former period is required to be reckoned as pensionable also. Counsel for the State has opposed the application to submit that on 10.5.1982 the petitioner was not absorbed in service but was appointed. There is no continuity in his service. 2 The petitioner was appointed on 28.8.1981 in an ad hoc capacity for a period of six months only. It is not his case that any procedures for appointment were followed in consonance with Article 14 at this stage. The appointment appears to be purely fortuitous for a limited duration of six months only which was extended by another six months. Subsequently on 10.5.1982 the petitioner was not absorbed in service but was appointed afresh. The language of the letter is unambiguous. The petitioner accepted the same without demur and never raised the issue of continuity in service till he claims to have represented in 2005, 2010 and then filed the present application in 2011. If the petitioner had desired continuity of service it was for him to raise the issue at the stage when the respondents issued communication dated 10.5.1982 appointing him afresh thereby clearly indicating their intention that the past service was not to be counted. An ad hoc appointment for a specified duration without following any procedure in law is purely fortuitous and cannot be reckoned for the purpose of continuity in service. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)