State Of Punjab & Anr vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors

required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of

2 seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to

be counted and not ad-hoc service.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously

contended that the respondents who are Clerks serving under

the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and

circulars different from those which were considered in the

decided case and, therefore, the ratio in that case will not be

applicable in these cases. We have carefully considered the

said contention. We have also considered the Government

Letter No.4/8/85-3PPI/4408 dated 13.3.1996 containing the

policy instructions. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear

that the instructions contained therein were based on the

decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court taking the

view that ad-hoc service should be taken into account for the

purpose. This letter in our view can no longer form the basis

of the contention in view of the recent decision by this Court

in State of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association

and Anr. (supra). Undisputedly, the respondents at the time

3 of their appointment were governed by the Punjab Civil

Services (General and Common Conditions of service) Rules,

1994. In Rule 8 of the said Rules it is provided that the

seniority of the persons appointed on purely provisional basis

or on ad-hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are

regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular

appointment. Further, in the orders appointing the

respondents on ad-hoc basis, it was specifically stated that

they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was

further stated in paragraph III of the appointment letter that

the appointees' seniority will be determined only by merit in

which he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service

Commission. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be

counted towards seniority.

6. We do not feel it necessary to delve further into

merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State

of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr.

(supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to

4 the case in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that

the judgment/order passed by the High Court holding that ad-

hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of

service for giving the higher scale of pay is unsustainable and

has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the

judgment/order of the High Court under challenge is set

aside.

7. However, we make it clear that if any of the

respondents has drawn any amount on the basis of the High

Court's judgment granted to by including the period of his ad-

hoc service then the State Government shall not recover the

amount already drawn by the employee though for fixation of

the cadre seniority the position as laid down in this order will

govern. No costs.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi:

September 29, 2008

5