STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1136 · Decided: 29-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1136 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
\/. 
ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions 
c of Service) Rules, 1994 - r. 8 - Seniority - Determination of -
Held: Only period of regular service rendered by the employee 
to be counted and not period of ad-hoc service. 
Respondents serving as Clerks under the State of 
Punjab, were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis and later 
D regularized. At the time of their appointment, Respon-
,. 
dents were governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Gen-
eral and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. 
The question which arose for consideration in the . 
E present appeal was as to whether the period of ad-hoc 
service rendered by the Respondents was to be counted 
for the purpose of seniority. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. In Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Gen-
F eral and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, it 
is provided that the seniority of the persons appointed 
on purely provisional basis or on ad-hoc basis shall be 
determined as and when they are regularly appointed 
keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. 
G Further, in the orders appointing the respondents on ad-
hoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be gov-
erned by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated 
in paragraph Ill of the appointment letter that the appoin-
tees' seniority will be determined only by merit in which 
H 
1136 
) 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHWANI 
KUMAR & ORS. 
1137 
he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commis-
A 
sion. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be 
counted towards seniority. The judgment/order passed 
by the High Court holding that ad-hoc service is to be 
included in calculating the period of service for giving the 
higher scale of pay is unsustainable and has to be va-
B 
cated. [Paras 4, 5] [1139,A-C; 1139,D-E] 
State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Asso-
ciation and Anr. (2000) 8 sec 4 - relied on. 
2. However, if any of the respondents has drawn any c 
amount on the basis of the High Court's judgment granted 
to by including the period of his ad-hoc· service then the 
State Government shall not recover the amount already 
drawn by the employee though for fixation of the cadre 
seniority t_he position as laid down in this order will gov-
D 
ern. [Para 6] [1139,F] 
Case Law Reference 
(2000) s sec 4 
relied on 
Para 4 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5892 
E 
of 2008 
_From the final Judgment and Order dated· 20.4.2004 of 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP ,: 
No. 12230 of 2003 
K.K. Khurana, A.AG., Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
F 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a G 
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding 
that the ad-hoc services of the respondents were to be counted 
for the purpose of seniority. Reliance was placed on certain 
other orders of the High Courts passed earlier. It is stated by -
learned counsel for the appellants that this Court had occasion 
H 
1138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
·A to deal with the appeals filed by the State questioning correct-
ness of the judgments on which reliance has been placed by 
the High Court. Respondents were initially appointed during the 
period 1978 to 1987 as Clerks on ad-hoc basis and were regu-
larized between the period from 1980 to 1Q90. Respondents 
B submitted reRresentations clair:ning th.e benefit of their ad-hoc 
ser'1ices relying on the judgment tQ which reference has been 
made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Prayer was 
to the effect that the ad-hoc service was to be counted for all 
int.ents and purposes including seniority. 
C 
3. The main question !hat a_rises for consideration in this 
appeal is yvhether the period of ad-hoc services rendered by 
the respondents is to be included for .calculating ihe seniority. 
This question was cons_idered by a three-Judge Bench of this 
Court- in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS As-
D sociation and Anr. (2000 (8) SCC 4) wherein this Court took 
the view that for calculating &/18 years service required for giv-
ing higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only 
regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.