STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by the State of Punjab and the Director of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Chandigarh against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1993 of the learned District Judge, Faridkot who had set aside the judgment/decree of the Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot dated 1.4.1992 and ultimately the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for mandatory injunction against the State of Punjab directing the latter to count ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff-appellant during the period 26.12.1962 to 30.4.1964 towards seniority, promotion and other benefits.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that Santokh Sigh plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the State of Punjab through Collector, Faridkot and the Director of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Chandigarh directing them to count the ad hoc service rendered by him as Radio - T.V. Mechanic Instructor with effect from 26.12.1962 to 30.4.1964 at Industrial Training Institute, Bhatinda. It is alleged in the plaint that he was appointed as Radio-T.V. Mechanic Instructor on ad hoc basis on 26.12.1962 and he worked continuously on this post with effect from 26.12.1962 to 30.4.1964 at Industrial Training Institute, Bhatinda. He appeared before the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala and on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, he was given regular appointment as Radio-T.V. Mechanic Instructor with effect from 1.5.1964. According to the plaintiff, he has thus put in continuous service with effect from 26.12.1962 onwards. The Director of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, according to the plaintiff, did not count the ad hoc service rendered by him towards seniority, promotion etc. It is then stated by the plaintiff that a representation was also made by him to the concerned authority for counting the ad hoc service rendered by him towards seniority, promotion etc. but that was dismissed.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged by them that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable and it was barred by time. According to the averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants, it was stated that the plaintiff's appointment was ad hoc. He was regularised with effect from 1.5.1964. The ad hoc service, according to the defendants, could not be counted towards seniority, promotion etc. in view of the letter circular No. 1028/G-11-57/27804 dated 29.3.1957 issued by the Punjab Government to all Heads of the Departments etc. The representation of the plaintiff, according to the defendants, was rightly rejected by the Director of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Chandigarh vide Endorsement No. IT-EC/99/223/38302 dated 8.7.1982.