The period of adhoc service does not confer seniority over regular appointees.

Judgment :

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'Lower Appellate Court'), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/defendant was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1997 passed by learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial Court'), was reversed and the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff was appointed as Salesman-cum-Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.110-225 in the respondent/Corporation vide appointment letter dated 11.07.1973 and he joined the abovesaid post on 14.07.1973. The service of the appellant/plaintiff was terminated by the respondent/defendant vide order dated 22.12.1976. However, vide settlement dated 22.06.1977, the appellant/plaintiff was paid retrenchment compensation and was appointed afresh on the post of Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.110-225. In pursuance to the abovesaid settlement, the appellant/plaintiff joined on the post of Clerk on 28.09.1977. One Sh. Subhash Chander son of Sh. Yog Raj was appointed as a Clerk by the respondent/defendant w.e.f. 13.04.1974. His services were also terminated vide order dated 02.12.1976. However, as per the settlement, he was also appointed afresh vide letter dated 20.06.1977 on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and was further promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide order dated 02.01.1979 in the pay-scale of Rs.160-400 by giving the benefit of service rendered by him w.e.f. 13.04.1974 for the purpose of seniority. One Sh. Bhagwan Dass Arora was also given the same benefit as granted to Sh. Subhash Chander son of Yog Raj. The appellant/plaintiff submitted a representation that as the previous service rendered by Sh. Subhash Chander son of Yog Raj and Sh. Bhagwan Dass Arora was taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of seniority, the same benefit should also be given to the appellant/plaintiff. In other words, the case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the service w.e.f. 14.07.1973 should be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of seniority and he should be further promoted on the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 02.01.1979, when Subhash Chander son of Yog Raj was promoted to the abovesaid post. No decision was taken by the respondent/defendant. As a consequence of this, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the extent that service rendered by him before his termination i.e. w.e.f. 14.07.1973 should be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority of Clerks and he should be promoted on the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 02.01.1979 in parity with Sh. Subhash Chander son of Sh. Yog Raj.

3. Upon notice, the respondent/defendant caused appearance and filed written statement. It was the case of respondent/defendant that in terms of settlement dated 22.06.1977, all the benefits which the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to, were granted accordingly. It was pleaded that as Sh. Subhash Chander son of Sh. Yog Raj was initially appointed on regular basis before his service was terminated, as such, there is no parity with Sh. Subhash Chander and therefore, services rendered by the appellant/plaintiff on adhoc basis before his termination cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of seniority.

4. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is also entitled for mandato