RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 26/2/2001 (P-3) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for granting benefit of ad hoc service on the post of Clerk towards seniority. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on 2/5/1973 and he joined as such on 5/5/1973 (P-1) in the Department of Food and Supplies, Haryana. The basis of his appointment was the recommendation received from the Employment Exchange and the pay scale fixed by the respondent department was Rs. 110-225 with two advance increments to graduates plus allowances. In clause (i) of the appointment letter it was made clear that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and was not to exceed period of six months in any case. On 31/1/1985, the services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 1/1/1980. The petitioner represented for counting of his ad hoc service towards seniority on 4/10/2000 and also sent reminder on 16/2/2001. However, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 26/2/2001 (P-3). Thereafter he was promoted as Auditor on 19/6/2001. The petitioner has claimed that the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by him for seniority has been wrongly denied by the respondents as he was appointed at the initial stage by adopting proper procedure by a competent authority and he had worked for about 7 years.

(2.) In the written statement the stand taken by the respondents is that ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner prior to 1/1/1980 cannot be counted for the purposes of seniority and reliance in this regard has been placed on the instructions dated 29.3.1957 (R-1). The other material assertions made by the petitioner have been conceded and one material objection has been raised, namely, that there is a colossal delay because his services were regularised with effect from 1.1.1980. No claim since 1980 with regard to adding up ad hoc service for the purposes of seniority has been made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner must be given the benefit of ad hoc service for the purposes of seniority from 2.5.1973 till 31.12.1979 as his appointment was made according to the rules. For the aforementioned purpose, learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh & another, 2005 (4) RSJ 433 and Sports Authority of India and another v. Adarsh Mehta and another, 2004 (4) RSJ 294. He has also placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India and others, 2000 (4) RSJ 1.