High CourtDivision Bench2008-09-29Appeal allowed.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2008

Neutral Citation:[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1136

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-09-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The High Court’s judgment counting ad-hoc service for seniority is set aside. Only regular service is to be counted towards seniority, as per Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, and seniority shall be determined by merit as placed by the Punjab Public Service Commission. If any respondent has drawn amounts on the basis of the High Court’s judgment, the State shall not recover them; cadre seniority will be governed by this order. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab and Anr.

Respondents

Ashwani Kumar and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.K. Khurana
• A.A.G.
• Arun K. Sinha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns seniority computation for clerks under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1994, where the eligibility and pay scales hinged on whether ad-hoc service should be counted toward seniority. Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 stipulates that seniority of persons appointed on provisional or ad-hoc basis shall be determined on regular appointment, with the date of regular appointment controlling the seniority; the appointment letters to the respondents confirm that they were governed by these Rules and that seniority would be determined by merit as placed by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The Punjab High Court had held that ad-hoc service could be counted for higher pay scales, a view challenged by the State. The respondents argued that Punjab rules and circulars differ from those in earlier decisions and that a 1996 policy letter supported counting ad-hoc service; they cited State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. (2000) 8 SCC 4 to bolster their position. The Supreme Court, however, reaffirmed the Haryana ratio, holding that only regular service should be counted for seniority, thus vacating the High Court’s order. The decision underscores that cadre seniority must be governed by the statutory rules, not ad-hoc periods, and it notes that any monetary gains already drawn on the basis of the High Court’s ruling need not be recovered. No costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 - Rule 8

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Seniority determined by merit
Only regular service counts for seniority

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1994 governs seniority, such that only regular appointment should count, with the date of regular appointment determining seniority. The appointment letters explicitly stated that appointees would be governed by these Rules and that seniority would be determined by merit as laid down by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Relying on the decision in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr., the appellants contended that ad-hoc service cannot be included for seniority or for fixation of higher pay scales. They also argued that a 1996 Government circular could not override the ratio established by this Court in the Haryana case. The Punjab authorities must adhere to the Rules rather than ad-hoc policy letters that contradict the rule-driven approach to seniority.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that they were governed by a distinct set of rules and circulars applicable in Punjab, and that ad-hoc service should be counted for seniority and for eligibility for higher pay scales. They argued that the Punjab Circulars and the 1996 policy letter supported including ad-hoc service, and that the Haryana case was distinguishable due to differences in the governing rules and instruments.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr.	(2000) 8 SCC 4	Positive	The Court follows the Haryana ratio that only regular service should count for seniority; this precedent governs the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1136 A ## STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. \/. ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2008) B 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, Respondents were governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General 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 (GenF 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 adhoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated in paragraph Ill of the appointment letter that the appointees' seniority will be determined only by merit in which H 1136 1137 STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. _v._ ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS. he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service CommisA 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 vaB 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 govD 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 F 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. 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 correctness 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 regularized 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 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 giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad-hec service. E 4. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the respondents who are Cle_rks serving under the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and circulars different from those which were considered in the decided case and, therefore, the ratio in that case will not be applicable in F these cases. We have carefully ~onsidered the said contention. We have also consid~red the Government Letter No.4/8/ 85-3PPl/4408 dated 13.3.1996 containing the policy instructions. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear that the instructions contained therein were based on the decision of the Punjab G and Haryana High Court taking the view that ad-hoc service should be taken into account for the purpose. This letter in our view ·can no lbnger form the basis of the contention in view of the recent decision by this Court in _State of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary_ & _AHTS Association and Anr._ (supra). Undisputedly, H the respondents at the time of their appointment were governed STATE tlF PUNJAB & ANR. _v._ ASHWANI 1139 KUMAR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] by lhe Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions A of service) Rules, 1994. In Rule 8 of the said Rules if is provided that the seniority of fhe persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ?d-hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular' appointment. Further, in the orders appointing the B respondents on ad-hoc basis, it was specifically sfated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was furthe,r · stated in paragraph Ill of the appointment letter that the appoin" tees' seniority will be determined only by merit in which he or . she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus it is Cr · clear that only regular service is to be counted towards senior- . ity. . 5. We do not .feeHt necessary to delve fu"rther into merits of the· cifae in· view .of the decision· otthis Court in _State of Hayana v. Har/aha Veterinary_ & _AHTS Association and Anr._ D (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the case in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the. judgrrienUorder passed by the High 9ourt 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 vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgmenU order of the High Court under challenge is set aside. E - . 6: However, we make it clear th"at if any of the respondents has drawn any amount on the basis of the High Court's - ~ · judgment granted to by inclu.ding the period of his ad-hoc serF . vice then the State Government shall not recover the amount. · already dra~n by the employee though fo~ fixation of the cadre seniority the position as laid down in this order will govern. No costs. B.B.B. · G Appeal allowed.· . . . _:_ )