LPA No. 1241 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1241 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 04.01.2011 Rattan Singh -----Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the respondents 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 20.05.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the respondents were not entitled to count their ad hoc service for the purposes of grant of benefit under the Assured Progression Scheme because only such service could have been counted which could qualify for the purposes of seniority. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by proforma respondents No. 4 to 11, who were claiming the similar benefits, which were granted to the appellant-respondent. While dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge has also LPA No. 1241 of 2009 (O&M) -2- directed that no such benefit could have been granted to the appellant-respondent and has directed the respondent-State to withdraw all the benefits granted to the appellant-respondent on the basis of beneficial orders passed by the respondent-State. 2. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant- respondent has argued that there was some litigation before the Civil Court, which has granted him the benefit to count ad hoc service for the purposes of seniority. According to the learned counsel, the civil suit was decreed partially. However, the appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, he has submitted that the decree passed by the court of Additional District Judge must be upheld and the relief be given. 3. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that respondent-State had also filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge and by judgment and decree dated 18.10.2000, a copy of the order is taken on record as Mark 'A', the appeal of the State was dismissed and the Civil Court decree was upheld which has granted the partial relief of pay scale of working on the higher post but no relief for the purposes of seniority was given. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the period of ad hoc service rendered by an employee is not to be included for the purposes of seniority. Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (General Common Conditions) Rules, 1994 (for brevity 'the Rules'), which is applicable to the employees involved in the present case came up for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of LPA No. 1241 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Punjab v. Ashwani Kumar AIR 2009 SC 186. It has been held that only regular service is to be counted towards the seniority. It has also been held that any amount drawn on the basis of the error committed in counting ad hoc service for the purposes of seniority was not to be recovered. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal does not merit admission. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to raise the issue concerning recovery of payment made to him when the respondent-State would issue him show cause notice. The State shall consider the aforesaid issue by keeping in view the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram v. State of Haryana 2009 (3) SCT 333. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE January 4, 2011 Atul