SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners were initially appointed on adhoc basis as Stenographers Grade -D on their names being recommended by the Employment Exchange for a period of 89 days in April, 1988 which was extended from time to time. The petitioners were aggrieved by the notional breaks given after 89 days of service each time and are stated to have preferred a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The O.A. - 344/PB/89 which was decided on 28.07.1989 holding that the petitioners would continue to work on adhoc basis until posts are filled -in on regular basis but without any break.
(2.) AS a sequitur to the aforesaid, the process of regular recruitment took place on 02.01.1995 when the petitioners went through a written/typing and shorthand test held by the Staff Selection Commission. Such of the candidates who passed the test were given regular appointment as Stenographers Grade -D while those who could not pass the shorthand test were appointed as L.D.C. The petitioners fall in the latter category. The petitioners have a dual grievance: - i) Their services rendered in the past should be counted towards fixation of pay even though it was in the capacity of Stenographers while they were appointed as L.D.C. ii) For the purpose of computation of pension, restricting the benefit to counting of only 50% of the adhoc service is wrongful.
(3.) AS far as the first aspect is concerned, as explained in the counter affidavit and one may say as it is obvious on the face of it, the failure of the petitioners to clear the shorthand test would have resulted in their discontinuation of service. The appointment of the petitioners was on adhoc basis till such time posts were filled in on regular basis. On the holding of regular process, the petitioners failed to clear the test. However, a compassionate view was taken on this issue and instead of dispensing with their services they were appointed as L.D.C. This facilitated their employment. There was no compulsion for the petitioners to join as L.D.C. In such a situation, there can be no question for the past service being counted towards the fixation of pay of the petitioners. This very view has found favour in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench while dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioners on 18.09.2006 and thus obviously does not call for any interference.;