Allowed¶53

Punjab State Elect.Board etc. v. Gurdial Singh.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2026RSA/2561/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-2561-1996 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., pronounced 01.04.2026). Keywords: seniority; ad hoc service; regularization versus fresh appointment; open selection; advertisement dated 04.02.1980; Junior Draftsman; Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda; Punjab State Electricity Board; Articles 14 and 16 Constitution; Malook Singh v. State of Punjab; stop-gap appointment; pensionary benefits; appeal allowed; trial Court decree restored; suit dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 09.04.1996 of the First Appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree dated 28.10.1995 of the trial Court restored; plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶53

Punjab State Elect.Board etc. Vs Gurdial Singh. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff from 15.06.1977 to 31.07.1980 can be counted towards seniority after his appointment on regular basis in the year 1980.

¶37

Court's answer

The plaintiff's 1980 appointment, made in response to a regular advertisement after open selection, was a fresh appointment following the prescribed procedure, not a regularization of his earlier ad hoc service.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Where the initial appointment is ad hoc, a stop-gap arrangement not in accordance with the recruitment rules, the service rendered in that capacity cannot be counted for determining seniority.

¶44

Key takeaways

Equating ad hoc service with substantive appointment through regular selection treats unequals as equals and offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.ratio¶44
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malook Singh, ad hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority and can at best be considered for limited purposes such as pensionary benefits.ratio¶45
Ad hoc service may be considered for seniority only where the initial appointment itself accords with the rules, or where the employee continues uninterruptedly after such appointment till regularization under a valid policy.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal by Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment/decree dated 09.04.1996 of the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, which had reversed the trial Court (28.10.1995) and decreed plaintiff Gurdial Singh's suit claiming seniority from his initial ad hoc appointment as Junior Draftsman (15.06.1977). Held: the plaintiff's 1980 appointment, made pursuant to advertisement dated 04.02.1980 after open selection, was a fresh appointment and not a regularization; ad hoc service rendered dehors the recruitment rules as a stop-gap arrangement cannot be counted for seniority, since equating it with substantive selection would treat unequals as equals and offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Following Malook Singh v. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal Nos. 6026-6028 of 2021, decided 28.09.2021), ad hoc service counts for seniority only where the initial appointment accords with the rules or service continues uninterruptedly till regularization under a valid policy — conditions absent here. Seniority is reckonable from the date of regular appointment. First Appellate Court's judgment and decree set aside; trial Court's restored; suit dismissed with costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

RSA-2561-1996 (O&M)

¶4

Punjab State Electricity Board and others . . . . Appellants

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Gurdial Singh . . . . Respondent

¶7

****

¶8

Reserved on: 20.03.2026

¶9

Pronounced on: 01.04.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully

¶10

****

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶12

¶13

Present: - Mr. Abhimanyu Jangra, Advocate, for

¶14

Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶15

Mr. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶16

¶17

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶18

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant–Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff–Gurdial Singh was accepted and the suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction was decreed, reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 28.10.1995.

¶19

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Trial Court record, available on DMS, has been perused.

¶20

The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff was initially engaged as a Junior Draftsman on ad hoc basis with effect from 15.06.1977. Subsequently, the defendant-board issued an advertisement dated 04.02.1980 inviting applications for 15 posts of Junior Draftsman. The advertisement specifically

¶21

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.04.06 16:05 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

¶22

RSA-2561-1996

¶23

2026:PHHC:049666

¶24

permitted those incumbents, who were already working on ad hoc basis at Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda, to apply, irrespective of the prescribed qualifications or age. The plaintiff applied pursuant to the said advertisement and was appointed on regular basis on 31.07.1980.

¶25

The grievance of the plaintiff is that his services ought to have been counted from 15.06.1977, i.e. the date of his initial ad hoc appointment, for the purposes of seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits. According to him, the action of the defendant-board in reckoning his service only from 31.07.1980 is illegal and arbitrary. As representations made by him were rejected, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a declaration to the aforesaid effect along with consequential relief of injunction.

¶26

The defendant-board contested the suit, asserting that the initial appointment of the plaintiff in 1977 was purely on ad hoc basis and not in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed on regular basis only in the year 1980 after participating in a proper selection process pursuant to the advertisement. As per the applicable rules and instructions, the ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff could not be counted towards seniority or promotion.

¶27

The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, returned a finding that the plaintiff had indeed been appointed on ad hoc basis in 1977 and was subsequently appointed on regular basis in 1980 against a duly advertised post. The Court also noticed the relevant executive instructions, which categorically stipulated that ad hoc service could not be counted for the purposes of seniority. Holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

¶28

Aggrieved against the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which came to be accepted by the learned First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court took the view that once the services of an employee are regularized, the benefit of earlier service should relate back to the date of initial appointment. Relying upon certain precedents, it held that the plaintiff was

¶29

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.04.06 16:05 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

Page 2 of 5

RSA-2561-1996

2026:PHHC:049666

entitled to have his seniority reckoned from 15.06.1977 and accordingly decreed the suit.

¶34

Assailing the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant– board has argued that the First Appellate Court has proceeded on a fundamentally erroneous premise by treating the case as one of regularization. It is contended that the plaintiff was not regularized in service, but was appointed afresh in the year 1980 after undergoing a proper process of selection. It is submitted that the distinction between regularization and fresh appointment has been completely overlooked, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

¶35

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent–plaintiff has supported the impugned judgment, contending that the Appellate Court has correctly appreciated both the facts and the law applicable to the case.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.

¶37

The core issue which arises for consideration is whether the ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff from 15.06.1977 to 31.07.1980 can be counted towards seniority after his appointment on regular basis in the year 1980.

¶38

A careful scrutiny of the record leaves no manner of doubt that the initial engagement of the plaintiff in 1977 was purely on ad hoc basis and not in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules. It is equally undisputed that in the year 1980, the defendant-board issued a regular advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of Junior Draftsman and the plaintiff, in response thereto, applied and was selected for appointment on regular basis. Thus, the appointment of the plaintiff in 1980 cannot be termed as a case of regularization of his earlier ad hoc service; rather, it was a fresh appointment made after following the prescribed procedure.

¶39

This distinction assumes significance in view of the settled legal position governing the field. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held

¶40

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.04.06 16:05 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

Page 3 of 5

RSA-2561-1996

2026:PHHC:049666

that where an initial appointment is made on ad hoc basis, as a stop-gap arrangement and not in accordance with the recruitment rules, the service rendered in such capacity cannot be counted for the purpose of determining seniority. The rationale behind this principle is that an ad hoc appointment, being dehors the rules and made without affording equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, cannot be equated with a substantive appointment made through a regular selection process. To do so would amount to treating unequals as equals and would offend the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶45

The law has been authoritatively reiterated in subsequent judgments, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malook Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No. 6026-6028 of 1921 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 14039-1431 of 2011) decided on 28.09.2021 , wherein it has been clearly held that ad hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority and can, at best, be considered for limited purposes such as pensionary benefits. It has further been clarified that only where the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules, or where the employee continues uninterruptedly after such appointment till regularization under a valid policy, can such service be considered for seniority. The present case does not fall in that category.

¶46

In the case at hand, the plaintiff’s initial appointment was admittedly ad hoc and dehors the rules. His subsequent appointment in 1980 was made through a process of open selection. Therefore, the principle applicable is that the seniority of the plaintiff has to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment and not from the date of his initial ad hoc engagement.

¶47

The First Appellate Court, in my considered view, fell in error in applying precedents relating to regularization without appreciating that the present case did not involve regularization at all. The reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

¶48

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.04.06 16:05 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

Page 4 of 5

RSA-2561-1996

2026:PHHC:049666

Consequently, it must be held that the trial Court had correctly appreciated both the factual and legal aspects of the matter and had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

¶53

In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment and decree dated 09.04.1996 passed by the learned First Appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court dated 28.10.1995 are restored. The suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed with costs.

¶54

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶55

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 01.04.2026 JUDGE �� Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶56

Uploaded on: 06.04.2026

¶57

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.04.06 16:05 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

¶58

Page 5 of 5

Punjab State Elect.Board etc. v. Gurdial Singh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Elect.Board etc. v. Gurdial Singh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit Kaur Alias Rozy Vs Madhu Sharma and Another

Neeraj Jain Vs Vaishali Singh, Administrator Hsvp and Anr.

Sukhdev Kaur etc. Vs Baljinder Kaur etc.

Smt.Mari Devi etc. Vs State of Hy. etc.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Chandgi Ram

Tarsem Singh and Others Vs Sohan Singh and Others