Ajit Singh, J.

This intra court appeal is directed against the order of the Single Bench dated 18.09.2012, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein) for regularisation of his services, was dismissed. However, it was observed by the Single Bench that this order shall not come in the way of the family of the appellant seeking legal recourse for any benefits, to which they would be entitled.

2. The appellant was appointed as LDC in the Law Commission vide order dated 28.04.1993 (Annexure-1) on temporary (ad hoc) basis for a period of two months. Later this period had been extended periodically. Vide order dated 12.01.1994 (Annexure-2), it was extended till 28.02.1994. The appellant was transferred to the office of Administrator General & Official Trustee, State of Rajasthan vide order dated 21.03.1994 on his application dated 19.03.1994 (Annexure- R/1). Vide order dated 17.12.1999, the services of the appellant were extended upto 31.12.1999 on the condition that his services will be terminated immediately after 31.12.1999, in case he will not pass the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The appellant could not pass the aforesaid examination and filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.514/2000, wherein the Single Bench, vide order dated 11.02.2000, had directed to maintain status quo regarding his services.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that as the appellant had continued in service for a period of 17 years, he was entitled to regularization. It is also contended that the appellant had expired during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives were impleaded in his place. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has relied upon judgments in the case of Executive Engineer, I & P.H. Division Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. v. Smt. Judhya Devi w/o late Shri Shesh Ram, H.P. [2013(1) SLR 13(H.P.)], Smt. Maina Devi v. Commissioner (Personnel), Jaipur Nagar Nigam & Ors. [2012(2) WLC (Raj.) 195], Gaurav Pachaury v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2011(131) FLR 712], Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012)7 SCC 757], Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [2009(3) SLR 628], Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 434], and State of Haryana & Ors. v. Dalel Singh [2012(3) SLR 326 (Pb. & Hry.)].

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that the appellant had been appointed only on temporary basis in the Law Commission and upon dissolution of the Law Commission, the post of LDC stood abolished. He had continued subsequently till the regular appointment as a stopgap arrangement and hence could not claim regularization.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is evident that the appellant had been appointed purely on temporary basis vide order dated 28.04.1993. His services were subsequently extended by various orders, but there is no order which would indicate that the appellant had been appointed against a substantive post in accordance with the Rules. It is also borne out from the record that the appellant had himself submitted an application for transfer to the office of the Administrator General & Official Trustee, Jaipur on 19.03.1994, and he was transferred vide order dated 21.03.1994. It is, thus, a transfer at his own request and it is not open to the appellant to maintain that he had been absorbed on a permanent post vide this order dated 21.03.1994.

7. A perusal of copies of the extension orders dated 15.11.1996 & 07.07.1997 (Annexures-R/5 & R/6 respectively) indicates that his services were extended only on the condition that he will pass the LDC Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the reply filed by the State-respondents, it is also stated that the Department of Finance had been continuously raising objections to the extension of the services of the a