1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-

iii. Quash order dated 23.05.2015 issued by the respondents in compliance of judgment dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 2895-CAT of 2006 to the extent the services of the applicants have been regularized w.e.f. 21.05.2014 instead of from the date of initial appointment, copies of order NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 4 dated 23.05.2015 attached as Annexure A-14 (colly) and to the extent regularization of applicants has been ordered w.e.f. 21.05.2014. iv. Issue declaration to the effect that the applicants are regular as Stenographer Grade-II w.e.f. 10.04.2006 and clause of fixation of seniority of the applicants in terms of DOPT guidelines dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure A-19) in their order of regularization is superfluous and is not applicable to the case of the applicants as their cases are not governed by the said instructions.

v. Direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits, after treating them regular w.e.f. 10.04.2006 i.e. consideration of their claim for further promotion as Stenographer Grade-I on same lines as ordered in favour of private respondent No. 4 to 8, consideration for MACP etc. vi. Direct the respondents to convert the applicants from subscriber of Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) under New Defined Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme as they have been regularized in continuation of their adhoc service, which they have rendered since 1993 / 1995 till regularization of their services and are not fresh appointees and as such they would be governed by the G.P.F.-cum-Pension Scheme, which was applicable to the Central Government employees who entered service prior to 01.01.2004 and also entitled to count their entire service including the one rendered prior to regularization as qualifying service for pensionary benefits in view of the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans Lal Versus The State of Punjab and others, decided on 31.08.2010 upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C) No. 23578 of 2012, against which Review Petition was also dismissed and also Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Kesar Chand versus State of Punjab reported as 1998(2) PLR 223.

NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 5

2. The brief facts as submitted by the applicants through this Original Application are that the applicants were sponsored through the Employment Exchange for the post of Stenographer pursuant to requisition by the Respondent Department. After qualifying the skill test and interview, they were appointed against duly sanctioned posts and joined service between June 1993 and October 1995, initially for 89 days, and thereafter continued uninterruptedly. Particulars of the Applicants are annexed as Annexure A-10.

3. The applicants' earlier claim for regularization was rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 02.09.2005 in O.A. No. 1110-PB-2003. However, in CWP No. 2895 of 2006, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, vide judgment dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure A-11), held that the Applicants' case fell within the exception carved out in paragraph 53 of (2006) 4 SCC 1 and directed the Respondents to frame a scheme for regularization. In compliance, services of the Applicants were regularized vide order dated 13/20.05.2014 (Annexure A-12). Subsequently, Memorandum dated 13.05.2015 and order dated 23.05.2015 were issued (Annexures A-13 and A-14). The condition requiring qualification of skill test under Recruitment Rules, 2010 was set aside by this NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 6 Hon'ble Tribunal on 24.02.2016 in O.A. No. 060/00626/2015 (Annexure A-15).

4. A tentative seniority list was issued, against which representations dated 02.02.2016 and 10.03.2016 were submitted (Annexures A-17 and A-18). The objections were disposed of vide orders dated 09.11.2016 (Annexures A-1 to A-8), relying upon policy dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure A-19). The Applicants submit that the said policy is inapplicable as their service has been continuous since 1993-1995, and they have wrongly been placed below officials appointed in 2010 under subsequent Recruitment Rules.

5. The applicants further contend that despite initial appointment prior to 01.01.2004, they have been covered under the New Pension Scheme pursuant to regularization order dated 13/20.05.2014. In view of the judgment dated 31.08.2010 in CWP No. 2371 of 2010, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.11.2015 (Annexures A-20 and A-21), their entire service from initial appointment is liable to be counted towards qualifying service. They also claim entitlement to promotion to Stenographer Grade-I under relaxed eligibility criteria vide instructions dated 04.01.2016 and 04/07.03.2016 (Annexure A-22), as well as NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 7 consequential benefits including MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Hence, the present Original Application.

6. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicants by filing a written statement wherein it has been stated that the applicants have filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of order dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure A-1 to A-8), whereby their claim for grant of seniority from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis in 1994 was rejected. The respondents submit that the applicants were appointed as Stenographers on ad-hoc basis in 1994 and were regularized later, with their seniority correctly determined from the date of their regular appointment as Stenographer Grade-II vide office order dated 20.05.2014.

7. It is contended that as per DoPT O.M. dated 03.04.2013, read with earlier O.Ms dated 29.10.1975, 30.03.1988, and 23.07.2001, service rendered on ad-hoc basis does not count for seniority or eligibility for promotion. Although the applicants' ad-hoc tenure continued beyond one year pursuant to the Tribunal's order dated 21.09.1995 in O.A. No. 732-PB-1995 ( Anju Bala vs. UOI & Another ) (Annexure R-1), such continuation does not confer a right to claim seniority. The O.M. dated 23.07.2001 NEERU DOUGALL (Annexure R-2) further clarifies that ad-hoc 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 8 service does not count towards seniority or promotion. Accordingly, their representation was rightly rejected.

8. The respondents further submit that the applicants' claim for coverage under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, 1972 is untenable in view of DoPT O.M. dated 26.02.2016, which limits eligibility to officials in service as on 10.09.1993. Since the applicants were regularized only on 20.05.2014, they were also ineligible for promotion (requiring 5 years' service, relaxed to 4 years for Recruitment Year 2016-17) and for benefits under the MACP Scheme, which requires 10 years of regular service in the same grade.

9. Lastly, reliance has been placed on various Supreme Court judgments (including State of West Bengal vs. Aghore Nath Dey ( 1993), Union of India vs. S.K. Sharma ( 1992), Ashok Gulati vs. B.S. Jain (1987), Masood Ikhtar Khan (1990), Dr. Anuradha Bodi (1998), Chief of Naval Staff cases, and others) to assert that ad-hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority. It is therefore prayed that the O.A. be dismissed.

10. The applicants have filed a rejoinder reiterating therein their stand as has been taken in the Original Application. NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 9

12. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the action of the respondents in not treating the services of the applicants as regular from the date of their initial appointment, or at least w.e.f. 10.04.2006, and in issuing the impugned orders as well as the seniority list showing their date of appointment as 21.05.2014, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is an admitted position that the applicants were appointed on adhoc basis between 1993 and 1995 through the Employment Exchange against duly sanctioned regular posts and were allowed to continue uninterruptedly for over two decades. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 2895- CAT of 2006, and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, their services were regularized vide order dated 20.05.2014. In such circumstances, their entire service is liable to be counted towards qualifying service and, at the very least, for the purpose of seniority w.e.f. 10.04.2006, when they became entitled to regularization.

14. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the respondents on Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2013 is wholly misconceived, NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' as the said O.M. pertains to adhoc 10 appointments for a maximum period of one year and has no application to a case where employees have been continued for 20-25 years against sanctioned posts. The fixation of seniority on the basis of the date of issuance of the regularization order, instead of the date from which regularization became due, defeats the very spirit of the judicial directions and the policy governing regularization. Regularization must relate back at least to 10.04.2006, and employees appointed after the said date cannot be permitted to rank senior to the applicants. The artificial fixation of regularization as 21.05.2014 is therefore liable to be quashed.

15. Learned counsel further submits that by ignoring 20-25 years of continuous service rendered by the applicants and placing employees with merely 2-3 years of service above them, the respondents have caused grave prejudice and acted in a manner that is arbitrary and discriminatory. Seniority cannot be deferred beyond the date on which regularization became due, and postponing it to 2014 is contrary to the intent of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and settled principles of service jurisprudence. The applicants are consequently entitled to all consequential benefits, including MACP, promotion, and coverage under the GPF-cum-Old Pension Scheme, as their entire service, NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 11 being rendered against sanctioned posts, is liable to be counted. The impugned action is thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be set aside.

16. While arguing the applicants have placed reliance on the following judgements:-

2796 of 2018 titled Ravi Verma and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 13.03.2018.

(iii) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement in CWP No. 2183 of 2017 (O&M) titled UOI & Anr. Vs. Dharminder Kumar & Anr. decided on 06.02.2017

17. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicants were appointed as Stenographers on an ad- hoc basis in 1994 and were regularized only on 20.05.2014, and therefore their seniority has rightly been reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not from their ad-hoc service. It was further submitted that, in view of DoPT O.Ms dated 29.10.1975, 30.03.1988, 23.07.2001 and 03.04.2013, service rendered on an ad-hoc basis does not count towards seniority or promotion, and hence the rejection of their representation was justified. It was also argued that the NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 12 applicants are not entitled to coverage under the GPF- cum-Pension Scheme, 1972 or benefits under the MACP Scheme, as they were regularized only in 2014 and do not fulfill the prescribed conditions of regular service.

18. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the pleadings and material available on record. It is an admitted and undisputed position that the applicants were appointed between 1993 and 1995 through the Employment Exchange against duly sanctioned posts of Stenographer and were permitted to continue uninterruptedly for more than two decades. Their continuation was not sporadic or stop-gap in nature but against regular vacancies. Ultimately, their services were regularized pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 2895-CAT of 2006, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

19. The principal question that arises for determination is whether, after such long and uninterrupted service culminating in regularization under judicial directions, the applicants can be denied the benefit of seniority from the date they became entitled to regularization, and whether the respondents are justified in reckoning their NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 13 seniority only from 21.05.2014, i.e., the date of issuance of the formal regularization order.

20. The applicants have placed strong reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. While the said judgment laid down that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it also carved out an exception in paragraph 53, permitting regularization of employees who had worked for more than ten years against sanctioned posts without the intervention of courts and whose appointments were not illegal. The case of the present applicants was specifically examined by the Hon'ble High Court in light of the said exception and directions were issued to frame a scheme for their regularization. Once such regularization has been granted in compliance with judicial directions, the consequential service benefits must be determined in a manner consistent with the spirit of the said judgment.

21. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Verma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2795-2796 of 2018, decided on 13.03.2018, wherein it was held that where employees have been regularized after long years of NEERU DOUGALL service and such regularization was not on 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 14 account of any illegality attributable to them, denial of consequential benefits may amount to unfair treatment. The principle that regularization cannot be rendered illusory by deferring all consequential benefits stands fortified by the said judgment.

22. The applicants have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India & Another vs. Dharminder Kumar & Another , CWP No. 2183 of 2017 (O&M), decided on 06.02.2017, wherein it was held that once regularization is directed in terms of judicial orders and the employees have rendered long continuous service against sanctioned posts, the fixation of seniority cannot be postponed in a manner that renders their past service wholly nugatory.

23. Insofar as the claim for counting of past service towards pensionary benefits is concerned, reliance has been placed on 24. Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP No. 2371 of 2010, decided on 31.08.2010), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 23578 of 2012, and on the Full Bench judgment in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab , 1998 (2) PLR 223. In the said decisions, it has been held that service rendered on work-charged or similar basis followed NEERU DOUGALL by regularization is liable to be counted as 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 15 qualifying service for pension, particularly when the service is continuous and against sanctioned posts. The ratio emerging therefrom is that beneficial service jurisprudence must be interpreted to avoid penalizing employees for administrative lapses.

24. The respondents, on the other hand, have relied upon DoPT O.Ms dated 29.10.1975, 30.03.1988, 23.07.2001 and 03.04.2013, and various judgments holding that ad- hoc service does not ordinarily count towards seniority. There can be no quarrel with the settled proposition that purely ad-hoc or stop-gap appointments made dehors the rules do not confer a right to seniority. However, the facts of the present case stand on a distinct footing. The applicants were appointed against sanctioned posts through a recognized mode of recruitment and were continued for over twenty years. Their cases were specifically brought within the exception recognized in and regularized pursuant to judicial directions. The executive instructions relied upon by the respondents cannot be applied mechanically so as to defeat the effect of such judicial determinations.

25. In our considered view, to reckon the seniority of the applicants only from 21.05.2014, ignoring their long and continuous service and the date from which they became entitled 2026.02.13 NEERU DOUGALL to regularization, 13:23:43+05'30' would amount to arbitrary 16 treatment and would defeat the very purpose of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court. Such an interpretation would render their regularization merely symbolic and would permit persons appointed much later to rank senior to them, which cannot be sustained in law.

26. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 09.11.2016 and 23.05.2015, as well as the final seniority list dated 20.01.2016, to the extent they fix the seniority of the applicants w.e.f. 21.05.2014 and deny consequential benefits, are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-fix the seniority of the applicants by reckoning their service at least from 10.04.2006, i.e., the date from which they became entitled to regularization in terms of the judicial pronouncements, and to grant all consequential benefits including consideration for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I, financial upgradations under MACP, and other service benefits, in accordance with law.

27. With regard to the claim for coverage under the GPF-

cum-Pension Scheme and counting of past service as qualifying service, the respondents shall re-examine the matter in the light of the judgments in Harbans Lal (supra) and Kesar Chand (supra) and pass a reasoned NEERU DOUGALL and speaking order within a period of three 2026.02.13 13:23:43+05'30' 17 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

28. The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.