IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 14, 2025 Mali Ram .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Vidhushi Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Seema Rani, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-28718-1997 As prayed for, the application is allowed.

CWP-18607-1997

1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner has wrongly been denied to be taken into account as a valid service for the grant of seniority.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on temporary basis after leaving the Army, even though, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 1973 but his seniority should have been calculated from the initial date of appointment i.e. 1969 so as to grant the benefit of seniority to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on adhoc basis in the year 1969 and his services were only regularized by the competent authority in the year 1973 and the petitioner has already retired from service in the year 1998 and while computing the pensionary benefits, the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner has already been taken into account but the same could not have been taken into account for the grant of seniority hence, the claim raised in the present writ petition is liable to be rejected as the impugned order passed by the respondents declining the said benefit, is perfectly valid and legal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. The question which arises for adjudication before this Court is whether, keeping in view the direction given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in RSA No.665 of 1996 dated 13.09.1996, the petitioner is entitled for any service benefits for the adhoc service rendered for the period from 1969 to 1972.

6. The only claim raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that the seniority is to be given from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of regularization of his services.

7. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Malook Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2021 (4) SCT 305, the benefit of adhoc service cannot be given towards seniority. The seniority benefit is admissible to a regular employee by excluding temporary service rendered. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

“18. As a matter of first principle, the view which has been adopted in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted. The policy for regularization issued on 3 May 1977 is clear in regard to the date of regularization, the principle for reckoning seniority and the basis on which seniority should be reckoned inter se between persons belonging to the group of ad hoc employees who were regularized. The policy clearly specifies that regularization would be granted to persons who had fulfilled a minimum of one year service as on 31 March 1977. As regards seniority, clause 5(a) specifies that the seniority, upon regularization would date back to 1 April 1977 vis a vis candidates appointed on a regular basis after selection through the prescribed procedure. As between ad hoc employees who were regularized, inter se seniority would however be based on the length of service so that a person possessing longer service would rank senior to a junior in terms of the length of service.

19. The judgment of the Single Judge in Malook Singh's case essentially dealt with two facets. The first was that persons who were recruited after following the regular procedure for selection after the date of regu