IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 293 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 11, 2008 Mrs. Krishna Devi Singla ....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the appellant that she was entitled to get her ad hoc service, rendered by her with effect from 20.11.1967 to 18.12.1967 and 12.1.1968 to 31.3.1968 with the Education Department with break with effect from 19.12.1967 to 11.1.1968 and 1.4.1968 to 18.10.1968, counted towards qualifying service and pension with consequential benefits of refixation of her pay with arrears and thus, entitled to revised PPO together with arrears of pensionary benefits, and, for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to implement the aforesaid relief, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala on 29.4.2006. She carried her challenge forward by filing first appeal,which was dismissed by Regular Second Appeal No. 293 of 2008 -2- learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala on 8.6.2007. Still, aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff-appellant rendered ad hoc service with effect from 20.11.1967 to 31.3.1968 with a break with effect from 19.12.1967 to 11.1.1968. Afterwards she was never given any ad hoc appointment. Instead she was selected as a Lecturer in Hindi on regular basis through Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') on 19.10.1968. The period of break, which was for more than six months, could only be counted for the purposes of refixation of pay only if her ad hoc service had been regularised later. There was no regularisation, instead it was a case of appointment of the appellant on regular basis through the Commission. The plaintiff could neither prove that the breaks between 31.3.1968 and 19.10.1968 was caused due to circumstances beyond her control or that it was on account of summer vacations. On the other hand, it stands proved that she was relieved from her ad hoc service on 31.3.1968 and she thereafter got appointment on regular basis on 19.10.1968. Therefore, the break between 31.3.1968 and 19.10.1968 could not be automatically condoned under Rule 4.23 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II. No case is made out for holding that the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts were against the Regular Second Appeal No. 293 of 2008 -3- provisions of law. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. The appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 11, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO