HARBHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 25.9.1997 passed by Financial Commissioner Revenue, o Punjab directing Commissioner, Patiala Division to redetermine the seniority off the Patwaris who were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis but later their services were regularised.

(2.) Collector, Sangrur vide his order dated 30.11.1981 (Annexure P-1) appointed Patwaris including the petitioner on ad-hoc basis. Likewise, in the year 1982 some more Patwaris were appointed on ad-hoc basis. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined service as revenue Patwari on 11.12.1981 and in the seniority list, he was assigned serial No. 83. Karnail Singh (4th respondent) too was appointed on ad-hoc basis and he submitted his report on 1.1.1982. Further, according to the petitioner, services of all Patwaris who had been appointed on ad-hoc basis in 1981 and 1982, were regularised vide order dated 1.4.1985 and their interse seniority was fixed. According to the petitioner, Collector, Sangrur vide order dated 18.11.1993, disposed of all objections filed in regard to fixation of seniority and circulated final seniority list. It is alleged that petitioner's name appeared at Sr. No. 115. Fourth respondent challenged the seniority on the ground that ad-hoc service should not be counted towards seniority regularisation and seniority be assigned age-wise. Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide order dated 1.9.1995 accepted the appeal filed by 4th respondent. Petitioner has further contended that one Vijay Kumar, Patwari filed CWP No. 2383 of 1996 and challenged order dated 1.9.1995 and this Court on 10.12.1996 quashed order dated 1.9.1995 and sent the matter to Commissioner for fresh decision. Commissioner, on remand, vide order dated 7.4.1997 dismissed the appeal of 4th respondent. Meanwhile, one Pawan Kumar, Patwari filed CWP No. 4929 of 1996 with a prayer to correct the seniority list because his date of appointment was wrongly mentioned. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.9.1996 dismissed the writ petition by holding that the benefit of ad-hoc service cannot be given for granting seniority to an employee. 4th respondent, upon dismissal of his appeal by the Commissioner, preferred appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue. The Financial Commissioner, relying upon judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 4924 of 1996, directed the Commissioner to redetermine the seniority by ignoring the ad-hoc service. It is this order which is being challenged here in this writ petition.

(3.) The only grievance made by the petitioner is that the period of ad-hoc ser- vice cannot be ignored for the purpose of determining seniority as the ad-hoc appointment was made by Departmental Selection Committee after following the procedure prescribed by the Rules.