The nature of ad hoc appointment cannot be converted into regular appointment as it would violate constitutional provisions. The absence of specific provisions for counting ad hoc service under Rule 11 led to the dismissal of the petition.

P.B. Bajanthri, J.

CM-6985-CWP-2017

This is an application for placing on record Annexures P5 to P7 and for granting exemption from filing certified as well as permission for placing on record true typed/photostat copies. Heard. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application and affidavit, same is allowed.

Main case.

Petitioners have sought for direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of ad hoc service rendered during the intervening period from 1984-1985 to 1988 for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits.

2. Petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, their services were regularized in the year 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners' initial appointment itself is required to be treated as regular for the reasons that the petitioners were subjected to regular recruitment process by inviting applications through employment exchange etc. Only while issuing order of appointment they have shown that the petitioners appointment was ad hoc. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:-

(i) 1990(2) SCC 715 titled as Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association versus State of Maharashtra and others.

(ii) 1993(3) SCC 371 titled as State of W.B. and others versus Aghore Nath Dey and others.

(iii) 2008(4) SCT 427 titled as Hanumant Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others.

(iv) Unreported decision in LPA No. 886 of 2011 decided on 13.10.2011 titled as State of Haryana and others versus Surindra Kumar Mishra and others.

3. It was submitted that in all the above decisions principle laid down by Supreme Court and this court that ad hoc appointment if it is in accordance with the rules and if such persons are appointed against sanctioned post after regularization of their services they are entitled to count ad hoc service for the purpose of service benefits as if their appointment is regular. Merely using the term of ad hoc in the order of appointment does not take away the service benefits of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for counting ad hoc service rendered between 1984-1985 to 1988 for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. It was further contended that Rule 11 of the Punjab Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) Sectional Officers (Engineering) Service Class III Rules, 1964 (for short “Rules, 1964”) even though it do not provide for counting of ad hoc service but still it is to be read that ad hoc service is required to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Hence, petitioners are entitled for right to count the service rendered on ad hoc post held by them.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Question for consideration in the present petition is whether the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Engineer during the period from 1984-1985 to 1988 (till date of regularization) could be counted for seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer or not? Undisputedly, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis to the post of Junior Engineer. Even the order of appointment reveals that petitioners' appointment was on ad hoc. Therefore, the relevant provision for the purpose of determining seniority of an employee is required to be examined. Relevant provision is Rule 11 of the Rules, 1964 which reads as under:

“11. Seniority- (1) Except as provided in sub-rule (2) the seniority of the members of the Service appointed after the commencement of these rules shall be determined by the dates of their continuous appointment in the service irrespective of their date of joining:

Provided that where the period of probation of an official has been extended, the order of appointment shall be deemed to have been issued on a date determined by adding to the original date the extended period of probation.

Provided that in case an official does not join his appointment within six months of the date of orde