IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 9282 of 1991 Date of Decision: 3.2.2010. Jai Ram --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as Typist on 23.2.1977 on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange on temporary/ad hoc basis. His services were later regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1980 vide order dated 15.2.1980. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefit of the ad hoc service rendered by him w.e.f. 23.2.1977 to 31.12.1979 for all intents and purposes. The petitioner has also relied upon Rule 11 of the Haryana Public Works Department (Building & Roads Branch) Headquarters Office Ministerial Service (Group C) Rules, 1979. The said rule reads as under:- “ Seniority of the Members of the Service. Rule 11- Seniority, inter se of members of the service shall be determined by the length of continuous service of any post in the service.” It is, accordingly, pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the entire service including seniority. The respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of seniority on the CWP. No. 9282 of 1991 -2- basis of the ad hoc service. None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned Addl. A.G., Haryana. The issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgement of this Court reported as 1995 (1) PLR 152, wherein following observations have been made:- “ For the purpose of present enquiry, clauses (A) and (B) in the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others case (supra) coupled with elucidation of these clauses in Aghora Nath Dey's case (supra) and also the views expressed in the earlier judgments of the apex Court, it can be said: (i) that the period as an ad hoc appointee cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority of an incumbent; (ii) it is only when such an appointment is as per rules and not by way of a stop gap arrangement and only a proceduraly formality is required to be complied with that the services so rendered will be taken into account towards his seniority in the cadre; (iii) In the absence of Rules, it would have to be kept in view as to whether the appointment so made is against an existing vacancy and not for a limited period and in that case the period so spent by an incumbent can be considered to determine his seniority in the cadre; (iv) if the appointment is otherwise regular except for the deficiency of certain procedural defects, such defect/defects stand cured with the subsequent regularisation; (v) mere long stay at the post on account of some inaction on the part of a delinquent officer or on account of interim direction of the Court will not clothe an appointee with any right to tag such a period to determine his seniority in the cadre. Period of service as a stop gap arrag CWP. No. 9282 of 1991 -3- shall be ignored while determining his seniority in the cadre. The above points are only illustrative and not exhaustive in content. Any point which is not specifically covered therein is to be examined in the light of clauses (A) and (B) of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others case (supra) as explained in Aghore Nath Dey's case (supra).” Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Masood Akhtar Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as 1990 (4) SCC 24 considered the similar issue and held as under:- “ 4. Mr. Ramamurthi's second contention was that there were no special rules for appointment to the said posts and therefore, it is the general Rules of 1961 (supra) which applied and according to Rule 12 of the said Rules, the seniority is to be counted from the date of initial appointment. We do not read any such provision in Rule 12. On the contrary, Rule 12 (a) (i) makes it clear that where the appointment has to be made in consultation with the Commission, the seniority is firstly from the date of the selection by the Commission and secondly according to the order of merits given by the Commission. Hence one of the authorities relied upon by Mr. Ramamurthi, viz., Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1990(2) Speed Post Judgments 199 (SC), D.N. Agrawal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (1990) 2 SCC 533) and Union of India and others etc. v. Ansusekhar Guin and others etc. (1989) 1 SCC 283) helps him. These authorities unequivocally make it clear that if the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularization of his service does not entitle an employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority.” In view of the above position, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 3.2.2010. lucky