Adhoc service beyond promotional quota and dehors rules, even if continuous till regularization, cannot be counted for seniority or benefits as it is stop-gap and fortuitous.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Salochna Devi, initially filed CWP No.3434 of 2011 before this Court, which upon creation of Learned State Administrative Tribunal; was transferred to said Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.3788 of 2019, seeking the following relief:-

“(ii) That the impugned order dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure P-1), may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner’s adhoc service may kindly be ordered to be regularized w.e.f. 28.06.1991 to 17.11.1995 with all consequential benefits including arrears, promotion etc.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Class-IV in Respondent-Board and she joined on 19.12.1987 as Peon [Class-IV Non-Technical] and was promoted as Clerk on adhoc basis on 28.06.1991 and such adhoc service continued uninterruptedly till regularization on 17.11.1995.

2(i). The petitioner has prayed that adhoc service rendered from 28.06.1991 to 17.11.1995 be counted for seniority, promotion, arrears etc. but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Respondent-Board on 20.05.2010 [Annexure P-1], on the ground, that once the adhoc promotion granted in the promotional cadre of Clerks/Meter Readers was in excess of 15% quota meant for Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff] therefore, the said adhoc service cannot be counted for purposes of seniority, promotion or other consequential service benefits.

STAND OF RESPONDENT-BOARD IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Respondent-Board has filed Reply-Affidavit dated 04.01.2012 of Executive Director [Personnel] HPSEBL, Shimla.

3(i). Para-1 of Preliminary Submissions of Reply- Affidavit states that as per Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 15 % vacancies of Clerks/Meter Readers were to be filled up from eligible Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff], who have completed two years regular service as such and who fulfil Educational Qualifications prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Regulations [Matriculation or Graduation or its equivalent] as the case may be.

3(ii). Reply-Affidavit indicates that in July 1990, Respondent-Board decided to make adhoc promotions from amongst the eligible Class-IV [Non-Technical] Personnel as Clerks/Meter Readers. Based on this decision, the petitioner was promoted as Clerk on adhoc basis on 28.06.1991 and she served as such till her regularization on 17.11.1995. Reply-Affidavit indicates that as per 15% quota, meant for eligible Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff], in the promotional cadre of Clerks/Meter Readers. Even a Tabular Chart was incorporated in Reply-Affidavit showing the incumbency between the period from 06.03.1982 to August 1990, indicating that total cadre strength of Clerks/Meter Readers was 883 and as per 15% quota, meant for eligible Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff], only 156 incumbents were entitled for promotion as Clerks/Meter Readers, whereas, 208 Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff] were already in position as on 14.08.1990 and 143 Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff] were already in excess as on August 1990. Reply-Affidavit states that despite the excess, a decision was taken in July 1990, the petitioner and others were promoted as Clerk on adhoc on 28.06.1991 beyond 15% quota, meant for Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff]. It is averred that 143 incumbents who were promoted as Clerk [adhoc] from 14.08.1990 till 01.03.1993 including the petitioner was in excess of 15% permissible quota. It is averred that the promotion was purely as stop-gap arrangement and the same was not to confer any right for regularization or othe