C.W.P.No.18712 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18712 of 2005 Date of Decision : 25.04.2008 Pritam Chand and others .....Petitioners versus The Haryana State Cooperative Agrl.and Rural Dev. Bank and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri C.B.Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri S.S.Dalal, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioners, who working as Peons with the Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 10.8.2005, Annexure P-7, whereby the claim of the petitioners to include the adhoc service for the purpose of service benefits, has been declined. It is the case of the petitioner that they were appointed as Peons on adhoc basis in the regular pay scale of Rs.120-220 on different dates, between the years 1980-1984. The services of the petitioners have been regularized . On regularization of their services, petitioner No.1 was given the pay scale of Rs.400-660 vide letter dated 10.1.1983. The petitioners C.W.P.No.18712 of 2005 2 served a legal notice dated 31.5.2005 claiming benefits of adhoc service. In reply dated 10.8.2005 to the aforesaid notice, it is pointed out by the respondents that the benefit of adhoc service to certain employees has been given in pursuance of the Civil Court judgment dated 24.11.1988, whereas, as per the Government Instructions dated 29.3.1957, the benefit of adhoc service towards seniority cannot be given. The benefit of adhoc/temporary service is allowed towards annual increments and leave only. As per these Instructions, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of granting Assured Career Progression Scale and other consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that certain employees, who are junior to the petitioners, but had approached the Civil Court, have been granted the benefit of adhoc service towards seniority and, therefore, the action of the respondent-Bank in not granting the same benefit to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Rule 13.3 (d) of the Staff Service Rules of the Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, specifically provides that the period of adhoc service followed by regular service cannot be counted towards seniority and promotion. Such clause in the Rule was inserted in the year 1994. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of adhoc service towards seniority. It is also pointed out that though some persons have been granted the benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of promotion, but the grant of benefit to such employees does not confer any right in favour of the petitioners as after the amendment of the Service Rules, the petitioners are C.W.P.No.18712 of 2005 3 not entitled to such benefit nor any illegality in the grant of adhoc service towards seniority can be perpetuated. It is also argued that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of Haryana versus Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association and another, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3020”, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of adhoc service towards seniority. It is also argued that the petitioners have approached this Court claiming the benefit of adhoc service, after more than 20 years of regularization of their services, therefore, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that the claim of the petitioners is meritorious. Apart from the fact that the benefit of adhoc services was declined to the petitioners at the time of regularization of their services in the year 1983 or soon thereafter, the fact remains that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition in September, 2005. Thus, the petitioners have claimed the benefit of adhoc services towards seniority almost after 20 years of regularization of their service. The benefit of adhoc service granted to few of the similarly situated employees is in terms of the Civil Court judgment and, therefore, such benefit granted to them is personal in nature. The petitioners cannot claim such benefits as such benefits are not admissible to the petitioners in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association's case (supra) has held that the adhoc service cannot be counted for seniority. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of adhoc service cannot be granted towards seniority and the same judgment is C.W.P.No.18712 of 2005 4 not prospective in nature, therefore, the interpretation of law would be that the benefit of adhoc service cannot be granted. Still further, the Staff Services Rules have been specifically amended in the year 1994 declining grant of adhoc service towards seniority, whereas, the present petition has been filed more than 10 years later. Such claim of benefit of adhoc service cannot be granted on the basis of the Rules as well as on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 25-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE