IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 11661 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th August, 2011. Daljit Singh Petitioner through Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner was appointed as a Sectional Officer purely on ad-hoc basis on 11.11.1977 in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Investigation Circle, Mohali and he continued to work as such till his services were regularized by the Departmental Committee on 27.11.1980. He seeks a Mandamus for counting of the ad-hoc service towards seniority. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sumnyan & Ors. V Limi Niri & Ors., 2010[3] SCT, 289 and two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Sports Authority of India & Anr. V Adarsh Mehta & Anr., 2004[4] RSJ, 295 and Hanumant Singh & Ors. V State of Haryana & Ors., 2008 [4] SCT, 427. The State Counsel while opposing the petitioner's claim relies upon yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. V Jagjiwan Ram & Ors., [2009] 3 SCC, 661 wherein a clear distinction has been drawn between the adhoc and work-charge services on the one hand and the regular services on the other. The petitioner though has not referred to the statutory Service Rules governing the service conditions, however, during the course of hearing, it is not denied that the Punjab Civil Services [General and Common Conditions of Services] Rules, 1994 regulate his service conditions. These Rules do not contemplate counting of the adhoc service towards seniority. It is well settled that the adhoc service is not to be counted towards seniority unless so permissible under the Rules or a policy decision or by virtue of a consistent practice followed in the Department. The decision in S.Sumnyan's case [supra] is distinguishable as there the persons were kept on probation while giving them appointment on adhoc/temporary basis. On completion of the probation period, their services were regularized from the dates of appointment. Similarly, the facts in Sports Authority of India and Hanumant Singh's cases[supra], are totally distinguishable. Moreover, the benefit of adhoc service cannot be granted to the petitioner alone which shall obviously ante-date the decision of the Departmental Committee in adjudging the suitability of the adhoc officials. For the reasons afore-stated, I find no ground to grant the desired relief to the petitioner. Dismissed. August 29, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE