IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6930 of 2008 Decided on: 06.09.2010 Teja Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner. : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the ad hoc service rendered by him has not been counted towards seniority. According to Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, the case of the petitioner is covered by the Judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association versus State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 715. 2. Consequently, the respondent-State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited hereinabove, within a period of 12 weeks after the receipt of certified 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- copy of this judgment. While considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent-State shall take into consideration the circumstances mentioned in the operative part of the judgment cited hereinabove, more particularly, paragraphs 47 (A) and (B) of this judgment, which read thus: “47 (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” 3. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge September 6, 2010 (K. Attri)