IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12686 of 1989 Date of decision: February 3, 2009 Parshotam Dass ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) The decision of this writ petition will also decide CWP Nos.11040 of 1990 & 4424 of 1991. This writ petition was filed for claiming the benefit of seniority and increments for ad hoc service. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector on ad hoc basis in the Department of Food and Supplies, Haryana w.e.f. 10.04.1969. Thereafter, while he continued as such he was granted increment also. By order dated 15.10.1971, his services were illegally sought to be terminated but the said order was stayed by this Court on 22.10.1971 and subsequently the petitioner continued in his service. The name of the petitioner was recommended for the post of Sub Inspector on regular basis by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana on 20.05.1972 without there being any break in his service. In the year 1984, the petitioner CWP No.12686 of 1989 -2- made a representation vide letter dated 28.10.1984 for claiming the benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of promotion, seniority and increment etc. It is not disputed that the petitioner has since retired. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily relied upon the Full Bench judgment in the case of Chambel Singh versus State of Haryana reported as 1995(1) PLR 152 : 1994(4) SCT 800 wherein it has been held as follows: “For the purpose of present inquiry, clauses (A) & (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 procedural 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/s stand cured with the subsequent regularisation; (v) mere long stay at CWP No.12686 of 1989 -3- 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 arrangement 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) & (B) of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others case (supra) as explained in Aghore Nath Dey's case (supra)..... In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that ad hoc service per se cannot be counted to determine appointee's seniority in the cadre.” It is not disputed that the benefit of increment was granted to the petitioner during ad hoc service and after ad hoc service. Thus, the said increment cannot be said to be illegally granted to the petitioner. Viewed against this authoritative pronouncement of law, it is seen that the original appointment of the petitioner could not be held to be in terms of those extra-ordinary situations mentioned the above mentioned judgment which would render a finding in favour of the petitioner justified. It cannot be held that the petitioner was appointed as per Rules and not by way of stop gap arrangement since as per Rules such a post would be filled up only through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana as it CWP No.12686 of 1989 -4- then was). Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. February 03, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE