The interpretation of the term 'tenure' and the distinction between ad hoc, tenure, and contract appointments in the context of seniority and increments.

Rajiv Sharma, J.-The petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher in Government Primary School, Malling, District Kinnaur on 16.7.1983 on ad hoc basis. He worked there till November, 1983. He was transferred to Government Primary School, Bari, District Kinnaur. He worked there up to 30.4.1985. Thereafter he was appointed as Language Teacher on ad hoc basis in the month of May, 1985 and was posted in Government Middle School, Hango, District Kinnaur. He worked in Government Middle School, Hango till 16.7.1985. Thereafter he worked as Language Teacher in the Government High School, Katgoan up to April, 1990. Vide office order dated 21.4.1990, he was appointed on tenure basis as Shastri in the pay scale of Rs. 16402925 and was transferred from Government High School, Katgoan to Government High School, Chhota Khamba, District Kinnaur. He was regularized vide office order dated 4.12.1995 with effect from 21.4.1994 as Shastri, but the period with effect from 21.4.1990 to 21.4.1994 has not been counted by the respondents for the purpose of seniority and increment.

2. Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner has worked uninterruptedly pursuant to Annexure A-1 dated 21.4.1990 till the date of his regularization i.e. 21.4.1994 and this period is to be counted for the purpose of seniority and increments.

3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was appointed on tenure basis in the year 1990 vide Annexure A-1, this period cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority and increments.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings.

5. The petitioner has been appointed in different spells initially as Junior Basic Teacher and thereafter as Language Teacher on ad hoc basis in Government Primary School, Malling, Bari, Government Middle School, Hango and Government High School, Katgoan. He was appointed as Shastri vide office order dated 21.4.1990. The expression used in his appointment letter is ‘tenure’. However, no period has been prescribed in the office order dated 21.4.1990. His services were to be terminated on the joining of regular Shastri. The expression ‘tenure’ has been defined in FR 9 (30-A) as under:

“Tenure post means a permanent post which an individual Government servant may not hold for more than a limited period.”

6. It is true that the expression ‘tenure’ has been used in office order dated 21.4.1990, but no period has been prescribed therein. The petitioner has worked in this capacity from April, 1990 till 4.12.1995. He has been regularized with effect from 21st April, 1994 on the basis of office order dated 4.12.1995. It is apparent that before the appointment of the petitioner, he was working on “ad hoc” basis as Language Teacher or Shastri before the issuance of office order 21.4.1990. The nomenclature from “ad hoc” to “tenure” has been changed to deny the petitioner the benefits which were available to the persons appointed on ad hoc basis. The expression ‘ad hoc’ has been succinctly explained by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Sain and others versus Union of India and others, (2000) 8 SCC 25 as under:

“16. The three terms ad hoc, stop gap and fortuitous are in frequent use in service jurisprudence. In the absence of definition of these terms in the rules in question we have to look to the dictionary meaning of the words and the meaning commonly assigned to them in service matters. The meaning given to the expression "fortuitous" in Strouds Judicial Dictionary is "accident or fortuitous casualty". This should obviously connote that if an appointment is made accidentally, because of a particular emergent situation and such appointment obviously would not continue for a fairly long period. But an appointment made either under Rule 16 or 17 of the Recruitment Rules, after due consultation with the High Court and the appointee possesses the pr