STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.versusASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS.

                        [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1136


A                 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
                                  \/.
                   ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2008)
                      SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
B
        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                       SHARMA, JJ.]

         Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions
c   of Service) Rules, 1994 - r. 8 - Seniority - Determination of -
    Held: Only period of regular service rendered by the employee
    to be counted and not period of ad-hoc service.
       Respondents serving as Clerks under the State of
  Punjab, were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis and later
D regularized. At the time of their appointment, Respon-              ,.
  dents were governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Gen-
  eral and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
        The question which arose for consideration in the .
E present appeal was as to whether the period of ad-hoc
  service rendered by the Respondents was to be counted
  for the purpose of seniority.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD:1. In Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Gen-
F eral and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, 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.
G Further, in the orders appointing the respondents on ad-
  hoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be gov-
  erned by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated
  in paragraph Ill of the appointment letter that the appoin-
  tees' seniority will be determined only by merit in which
H                             1136
               STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHWANI             1137
                         KUMAR & ORS.

    he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commis-            A
    sion. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be
    counted towards seniority. 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 va-          B
    cated. [Paras 4, 5] [1139,A-C; 1139,D-E]
          State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Asso-
    ciation and Anr. (2000) 8 sec 4 - relied on.
          2. However, if any of the respondents has drawn any c
    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 t_he position as laid down in this order will gov- D
    ern. [Para 6] [1139,F]
                          Case Law Reference
         (2000) s sec 4               relied on     Para 4
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5892         E
    of 2008
        _From the final Judgment and Order dated· 20.4.2004 of
    the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP ,:
    No. 12230 of 2003
                                                                    F
         K.K. Khurana, A.AG., Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a G
    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 H
     1138     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 13 S.C.R.


·A to deal with the appeals filed by the State questioning correct-
   ness 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 regu-
   larized between the period from 1980 to 1Q90. Respondents
 B submitted reRresentations clair:ning th.e benefit of their ad-hoc
   ser'1ices relying on the judgment tQ 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
   int.ents and purposes including seniority.
 C       3. The main question !hat a_rises for consideration in this
   appeal is yvhether the period of ad-hoc services rendered by
   the respondents is to be included for .calculating ihe seniority.
   This question was cons_idered by a three-Judge Bench of this
   Court- in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS As-
 D sociation and Anr. (2000 (8) SCC 4) wherein this Court took
   the view that for calculating &/18 years service required for giv-
   ing higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only
   regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and
   not ad-hec service.
 E       4. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously con-
   tended that the respondents who are Cle_rks 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
 F these cases. We have carefully ~onsidered the said conten-
   tion. We have also consid~red the Government Letter No.4/8/
   85-3PPl/4408 dated 13.3.1996 containing the policy instruc-
   tions. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear that the instruc-
   tions contained therein were based on the decision of the Punjab
 G 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 lbnger 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,
 H the respondents at the time of their appointment were governed
                     STATE tlF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHWANI             1139
                     KUMAR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

           by lhe Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions A
           of service) Rules, 1994. In Rule 8 of the said Rules if is pro-
           vided that the seniority of fhe persons appointed on purely pro-
           visional basis or on ?d-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 B
           respondents on ad-hoc basis, it was specifically sfated that they
           will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was furthe,r ·
           stated in paragraph Ill of the appointment letter that the appoin"
           tees' seniority will be determined only by merit in which he or
        . she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus it is Cr
         · clear that only regular service is to be counted towards senior- .
           ity.                                  .

                 5. We do not .feeHt necessary to delve fu"rther into merits
           of the· cifae in· view .of the decision· otthis Court in State of
           Hayana v. Har/aha Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. D
           (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to
           the case in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the.
           judgrrienUorder passed by the High 9ourt 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 E
           vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgmenU
           order of the High Court under challenge is set aside.

          .     6: However, we make it clear th"at if any of the respon-
          dents has drawn any amount on the basis of the High Court's
    ~   · judgment granted to by inclu.ding the period of his ad-hoc ser- F
        . vice then the State Government shall not recover the amount. ·
          already dra~n by the employee though fo~ fixation of the cadre
          seniority the position as laid down in this order will govern. No
          costs.
          B.B.B. ·                                                         G
                                                         . .
                                                        Appeal allowed.·
                                                                   .



:   )