IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR
Superintending Engineer, H.S.E.B. – Appellant
Versus
Sita Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The instant Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgments and decrees dated 10.09.1997 and 26.07.2000, passed by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court respectively, whereby the claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff for promotion to the post of Lineman with effect from 18.05.1993 and treating him as senior to Jaswant Singh, Bhagat Ram, Dalip Singh, Ram Pal and Jiwan Lal, has been accepted with all consequential benefits.
2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position before the learned Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff was initially appointed as Assistant Lineman, vide appointment letter dated 09.04.1973 (Ex.P1) and his services were regularised, vide order dated 15.05.1979 (Ex.D1). Jaswant Singh, Bhagat Ram, Dalip Singh, Ram Pal and Jiwan Lal were regularly appointed as Assistant Lineman on 17.07.1973 (Ex.P2 to P6). Jaswant Singh, Bhagat Ram and Dalip Singh were promoted to the post of Lineman, vide order dated 18.05.1993, whereas Ram Pal and Jiwan Lal were promoted as Lineman, vide order dated 12.10.1993. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for
Seniority is to be counted from date of substantive appointment and substantive appointment means, an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in cadre of service, made after selection....
The period of adhoc service does not confer seniority over regular appointees.
Petitioners (including the present petitioner) would not be entitled to the benefit of the ad hoc period of service while reckoning of his seniority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.