##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

RSA-2561-1996 (O&M)

Punjab State Electricity Board and others . . . . Appellants Vs.

Gurdial Singh . . . . Respondent ****

Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Pronounced on: 01.04.2026

Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Abhimanyu Jangra, Advocate, for Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the respondent.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant–Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff–Gurdial Singh was accepted and the suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction was decreed,

reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 28.10.1995.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Trial Court record, available on DMS, has

been perused.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff was initially engaged as a Junior Draftsman on ad hoc basis with effect from 15.06.1977. Subsequently, the defendant-board issued an advertisement dated 04.02.1980 inviting applications for 15 posts of Junior Draftsman. The advertisement specifically

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.04.06 16:05 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

RSA-2561-1996 2026:PHHC:049666

permitted those incumbents, who were already working on ad hoc basis at Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda, to apply, irrespective of the prescribed qualifications or age. The plaintiff applied pursuant to the said

advertisement and was appointed on regular basis on 31.07.1980.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that his services ought to have been counted from 15.06.1977, i.e. the date of his initial ad hoc appointment, for the purposes of seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits. According to him, the action of the defendant-board in reckoning his service only from 31.07.1980 is illegal and arbitrary. As representations made by him were rejected, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a declaration to

the aforesaid effect along with consequential relief of injunction.

5. The defendant-board contested the suit, asserting that the initial appointment of the plaintiff in 1977 was purely on ad hoc basis and not in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed on regular basis only in the year 1980 after participating in a proper selection process pursuant to the advertisement. As per the applicable rules and instructions, the ad hoc service rendered by the

plaintiff could not be counted towards seniority or promotion.

6. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, returned a finding that the plaintiff had indeed been appointed on ad hoc basis in 1977 and was subsequently appointed on regular basis in 1980 against a duly advertised post. The Court also noticed the relevant executive instructions, which categorically stipulated that ad hoc service could not be counted for the purposes of seniority. Holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief

claimed, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

7. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which came to be accepted by the learned First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court took the view that once the services of an employee are regularized, the benefit of earlier service should relate back to the date of initial appointment. Relying upon certain precedents, it held that the plaintiff was

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.04.06 16:05 I th a is g r d e o e c u to m s e p n e t cified portions of Page 2 of 5 Chandigarh

RSA-2561-1996 2026:PHHC:049666

entitled to have his seniority reckoned from 15.06.1977 and accordingly decreed the suit.

8. Assailing the said judgmen