REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5892 OF 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C.) No.11711 of 2006)
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Appellants
Vs.
Ashwani Kumar and Ors. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding
that the ad-hoc services of the respondents were to be
counted for the purpose of seniority. Reliance was placed on
certain other orders of the High Courts passed earlier. It is
stated by learned counsel for the appellants that this Court
had occasion to deal with the appeals filed by the State
1
questioning correctness of the judgments on which reliance
has been placed by the High Court. Respondents were
initially appointed during the period 1978 to 1987 as Clerks
on ad-hoc basis and were regularized between the period from
1980 to 1990. Respondents submitted representations
claiming the benefit of their ad-hoc services relying on the
judgment to which reference has been made by the High
Court in the impugned judgment. Prayer was to the effect
that the ad-hoc service was to be counted for all intents and
purposes including seniority.
4. The main question that arises for consideration in
this appeal is whether the period of ad-hoc services rendered
by the respondents is to be included for calculating the
seniority. This question was considered by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary
& AHTS Association and Anr. (2000 (8) SCC 4) wherein this
Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service
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