RSA No.2239 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2239 of 2006 Date of decision : 5-3-2009 State of Haryana and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Dr. V.K. Aggarwal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate with Ms. Deepa Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) This appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 7-3-2005 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 15-2-2006. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit inter alia claiming that he was appointed on 7-8-1980 after following the prescribed procedure for appointment in accordance with rules. He joined as a lecturer on 11-8-1980 on ad hoc basis and continued as such till the time the services were regularised on 31-12-1990. He claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service for the purposes of counting the same towards the grant of benefit of seniority, selection grade and other pecuniary benefits. He prayed that the same can be granted to him along with interest. The appellants who were defendants did not deny the factum of the plaintiff – respondent being appointed as a lecturer on RSA No.2239 of 2006 -2- ad hoc basis w.e.f. 11-8-1980. They pleaded that he has been given a break for the summer vacations but the benefit of said period of break was allowed to him, pursuant to the directions of the High Court given in a CWP No.8420 of 1989 filed by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the record of the plaintiff-respondent was not satisfactory and that there was a break in service prior to 1982, it was treated as extra-ordinary leave. The rest of the claim was denied. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff is liable to be counted towards seniority, if so to what effect? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of acquiring the degree of Ph.D. with effect from the date of acceptance of his thesis or not from the date of award of the degree? OPP 3. Whether the summer vacation etc. during the ad hoc period of service of the plaintiff could not be treated as extra-ordinary leave without pay as was done by the defendants? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest if so at what rate? OPP 5. Relief. Both the Courts below on the basis of the material available on record concluded that plaintiff-respondent was entitled to get the benefit of period of ad hoc service rendered by him and the same is liable to be counted towards his service for the purposes of RSA No.2239 of 2006 -3- grant of seniority and other monetary benefits. State of Haryana aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the period of ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff- respondent could not be counted for the purposes of seniority and other benefits for the simple reasons that his initial appointment on ad hoc basis was not in accordance with rules. Reference was made to Rule 2(b) of the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986. It was thus contended that the respondent was concededly not entitled to the benefit which had been awarded to him by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that his appointment on ad hoc basis was made after following the due procedure and since he continued as such as long as for 10 years, he was entitled to get his service counted for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent that an advertisement was published inviting the applications from the persons who are desirous of being selected as lecturer, pursuant to RSA No.2239 of 2006 -4- which the plaintiff-respondent had applied along with numerous others and after facing the duly constituted Selection Committee, was appointed as a lecturer. There is no denial to this fact by the respondent. It is settled principle of law that if there is no specific denial to a fact, the same is deemed to have been admitted. In this view of the matter, when concededly the plaintiff-respondent was appointed after following the due procedure of law, his appointment cannot be termed to be contrary to the rules as sought to be projected before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants. The Supreme Court in case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others (supra) has categorically ruled that if the initial appointment is in accordance with rules then the service rendered by such an employee on ad hoc basis is to be considered for the grant of benefit of seniority and other consequential benefits. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.2409 of 2008 titled as Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on December 18, 2008. In this view of the matter, when the principle of law has been settled beyond any doubt, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is totally without merit and warrant dismissal. No other point has been urged before this Court. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of the merit is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 5-3-2009 JUDGE manju