IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3393 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 21.07.2009 Gordhan Dass Mann .... PETITIONERS Versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer in Tau Devi Lal Thermal Power Station, Panipat, has filed the instant petition for quashing the orders dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure P-18) and 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-22), whereby his claim for counting ad-hoc service from 21.9.1985 to 15.12.1988 rendered by him in his previous department has been rejected. Undisputedly, in the present case, the petitioner was working as Drawing Instructor on ad-hoc basis in ITI, Karnal. Subsequently, he applied for the post of Operator Grade I to be filled by direct recruitment in the erstwhile HSEB and was appointed as such. After submitting his resignation from the post of Drawing Instructor on 15.12.2008, the petitioner joined as CWP No. 3393 of 2009 -2- Operator Grade I in Thermal Power Station, Panipat. In the appointment letter, a clear stipulation was made that the petitioner will be treated as a new entrant in the service of the Board for all intents and purposes. Now, the petitioner claims that his past ad-hoc service in ITI, Karnal should be counted for the purpose of increments and pensionary benefits, in view of the instructions dated 31.1.1984 issued by the Government of Haryana to all the heads of the Departments. These instructions provide for grant of pensionary benefits to ad-hoc Government employees recruited through Employment Exchange. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order as well as the aforesaid instructions, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for counting of ad-hoc service rendered by him in his previous department for the purpose of increments and pensionary benefits. The ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioner is not on the same post or in the same department. The said service was on a different post in a different department/organisation. If a person is appointed on ad- hoc basis through Employment Exchange on a post and subsequently, he is made regular on the same post or his regular appointment is made on the same post in the same department, his ad-hoc service may be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the aforesaid instructions. But the ad- hoc service rendered by the petitioner in the instant case was on a different post in a different department. Furthermore, in the appointment letter of the petitioner, it was specifically stipulated that he will only be treated as new CWP No. 3393 of 2009 -3- entrant in the service of the Board for all intents and purposes. Therefore, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioner for counting his ad-hoc service for increments and pensionary benefits has been rightly rejected and I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. July 21, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE