In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.3901 of 1987 ..... Date of decision:22.9.2011 Ajit Singh .....Appellant v. Hukam Chand and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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? ...... Present: Mr. Pawan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Chander Pathela, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.2 to 6. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal is directed by the defendant No.6- Ajit Singh (appellant herein) against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda whereby the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1985 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that Hukam Chand-plaintiff (respondent herein) was appointed as Clerk on 27.9.1976 on regular basis R.S.A. No.3901 of 1987 [2] on the recommendation of the Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board'). Ajit Singh-defendant No.6 (appellant herein) was appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on 25.5.1976 and his services were regularized on 15.12.1977. As per the seniority list dated 1.3.1980 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda the appellant was shown senior to the respondent. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for declaration that he is senior to appellant-defendant No.6 as he was appointed on regular basis by the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda on 27.9.1976 whereas the service of the appellant was regularized on 15.12.1977. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent is senior to the appellant and he has wrongly been shown senior to the plaintiff in the above seniority list. Hence, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was illegal and void. The suit was contested by the appellant on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation, pre-mature and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. According to the appellant, even though he was appointed on 25.5.1976 on temporary basis, but the same was on regular basis. The temporary service has rightly been taken into consideration for the purposes of seniority by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the seniority list was rightly prepared. The trial Court framed as many as seven issues, however, the main issue whether the plaintiff-respondent is senior to defendant No.6- appellant was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.6 by holding that as the name of defendant No.6 was recommended by the Board after the appointment of the plaintiff and as per instructions dated 15.3.1962, the ad hoc service is not to be taken into consideration for R.S.A. No.3901 of 1987 [3] determining the seniority, therefore, the plaintiff is senior to defendant No.6. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material produced on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff that he is senior to Ajit Singh- Defendant No.6. The appeal filed by the appellant-defendant No.6 against this order was dismissed and hence the present regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings of the Courts below on issue No.1 is erroneous as it has been proved on record vide seniority list (Ex.P.12) that the appellant is senior to respondent No.1. The suit of the respondent No.1 is barred by limitation as the seniority list (Ex.P.12) was issued on 1.3.1980, but the suit was filed on 14.8.1984. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that no interference is called for in the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any force and is liable to be dismissed. From the record, it is evident that respondent No.1 was appointed on regular basis whereas the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis and the ad hoc service as per Punjab Government circular letter dated 15.3.1962 is not to be taken into consideration for the purpose determining the seniority. The appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1998 (1) SLR 461 that the suit was barred by limitation. The facts of the above case are not applicable to the facts in the present case. In the above R.S.A. No.3901 of 1987 [4] case there was delay of about 12 years. In the present case, plaintiff filed suit on 14.8.1984 whereas the seniority list was issued on 1.3.1980. A perusal of letter (Ex.P.13) shows that the plaintiff made a representation against the seniority given to the appellant, however, the same was dismissed vide letter dated 26.3.1984 (Ex.P.14). Therefore, the representation of the plaintiff having been decided on 26.3.1984 was within time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. September 22, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*