N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) WHETHER service rendered by a person on adhoc basis is to be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority in the cadre is the question referred to the Full Bench in view of the conflict in the judgments in cases Sohan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992 (4) S. L. R. 190 and Des Raj v. The State of Haryana and Ors. CWP No. 8063 of 1991.
(2.) TO examine the question referred to, it would be appropriate to keep in mind the salient facts of one of the writ petitions. Since Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 5592 of 1989 has referred this law point for consideration by a larger Bench, salient facts of this writ petition are given in a summarised manner. Chambel Singh joined as Sub Inspector in Food and Supplies Department, Haryana on adhoc basis on 9. 11. 1967 and continued to serve the department till his services were terminated on 14. 10. 1971. The order of termination was challenged by the petitioner and others by filing writ petition bearing No. 4137 of 1971 in which the motion Bench by way of interim relief stayed the oparation of the impugned order of termination. Subsequently, petitioner and the like of him were given appointment as Sub Inspector on temporary basis with a specific stipulation that their services are liable to be terminated as soon as persons recommended by the Service Selection Board join and otherwise too without any notice and without assigning any reason. Later on, Service Selection Board recommended the name of the petitioner to be appointed as Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, Haryana pursuance to which Director, Food and Supplies Deptt/joint Secretary to the Government of Haryana issued appointment letter on June 6, 1972. Petitioner felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents as services rendered by him on ad hoc basis i. e. for the period from 8. 12. 1967 to 10. 6. 1972 was not being counted for the purpose of seniority, increment, promotion and other consequential benefits and so chose to assail the same by filing the present writ petition. According to the petitioner, he had served the department without any break since his joining the department on 9. 11. 1967. The order of termination dated 14. 10. 1971 having been stayed by the Motion Bench, there has been thus no break in service and so petitioner is entitled to tag this period to determine his seniority in the cadre. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in CWP No. 4468 of 1986 (Des Raj v. State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on February 11, 1988. The motion Bench vide order dated 2. 5. 1989 did not concur with the opinion expressed by J. V. Gupta, J. (as he then was) and so admitted the petition to the Division Bench.
(3.) MR . Gurnam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is for the proposition that ad hoc service rendered by an employee is to be taken into consideration while determining his seniority, especially when there has been no break in service and the initial appointment is also not contrary to the rules. Support has been sought from the judgment of J. V. Gupta, J. (as he then was) delivered in case 'des Raj v. State of Haryana and Ors. ' (CWP No. 4468 of 1986) and the Division Bench judgment of J. S. Sekhon and S. S. Rathor, JJ. , in Civil Writ Petition No. 8063 of 1991. In fact, the latter Division Bench judgment is an off-shoot from the decision of J. V. Gupta, J. , in CWP No. 4468 of 1986. In addition thereto, reference was made to Rule 11 of the Haryana Food and Supplies Department Sub Offices (Group C) Service Rules, 1982 (for short "the Rules") which envisages determination of seniority inter se members of the services by their length of continuous service on any post in the service. Elaborating, the counsel urged that the petitioner's appointment as Sub Inspector, though ad-hoc, was not contrary to the Rules. Petitioner served the department for almost for a period of 4-1/2 years without any blemish. The order of termination passed on 14. 10. 1971 was stayed by the Motion Bench and it is during the pendency of the writ petition that firstly the petitioner was allowed to work and thereafter was offered temporary appointment on the recommendations of the Service Selection Board vide appointment letter dated 6. 6. 1972. Thus, for all purposes there has been no break in the service of the petitioner who otherwise top has been promoted subsequently to the rank of Inspector as well. According to counsel, the view taken by J. V. Gupta, J. (as the then was) and the subsequent decision by the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 8063 of 1991 is per rules governing service and otherwise too just and proper and also in conformity with the proposition (A) and (B) as formulated by the apex Court in case reported as Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 and thus urged that the point referred to be answered in affirmative.;