In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 212 of 2008 Date of decision: February 04, 2009 Faridabad Complex Administration ... Appellant Vs. Nand Lal Taneja and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. M.K. Sood, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Gopi Chand Bhalla, Advocate for respondent. Uma Nath Singh, J (oral) This L.P.A. has been preferred by the Faridabad Complex Administration (Respondent No.1 in the writ petition), assailing the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 673 of 1989, dated 18.2.2008, allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent (appellant herein) to count ad-hoc service rendered by the writ petitioner for all purposes i.e. seniority and promotion etc. The writ petitioner was also held entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof. Learned counsel for appellant-administration submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed on 26.6.1982 as an ad-hoc arrangement to the post of Section Officer (Electrical) for three months, therefore, the period he worked as such on that post, could not have been counted for granting him seniority. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned judgment has been rendered in wrong premises and, thus, it needs to be interfered with. On the other hand, Mr. Bhalla, learned counsel for respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that identically situated some other employees LPA No. 212 of 2008 -2- *** were given the benefits of ad-hoc appointment in terms of judgment and decree passed in a civil suit which was challenged upto Hon'ble the Apex Court and attained finality. On the other hand, as the respondent had filed a writ petition, his case was ignored. He placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1990, Supreme Court 1607, (Para 44 (B)). The said paragraph, on reproduction reads as :- “(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” Thus, as the respondent continued on the post of Section Officer (Electrical) as an adhoc arrangement without any break from 1.7.1982 to 17.10.1985, when his service was regularized on that post, he is also entitled to get the same benefits of ad-hoc services as were given to others pursuant to the judgment and decree in a civil suit, as aforesaid. In the premises discussed herein above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which is hereby affirmed. Resultantly, this LPA being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) Judge February 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge