Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607 and Masood Akhtar & Ors.

Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.S. Hira, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

#1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 16.08.2016 (Annexure P-19), 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-21) and 11.01.2018 (Annexure P-23), whereby the claim of the petitioner for fixing seniority over and above respondents No.4 to 6 has been rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his initial joining i.e. 02.02.1979 as done in the case of other employees of the respondent-department and, thereafter, to fix the seniority of the petitioner over and above respondents No.4 to 6 and to grant all the consequential benefits i.e. promotion in the cadre of Senior Assistant/ Inspector and Superintendent from the date on which respondent No.4 was promoted as such and to pay arrears of salary attached to these CWP-20430-2018 2 posts along with 18% interest.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined the respondent-Corporation as Clerk on

06.02.1979 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1985, whereas respondents No.4 to 6, who joined the respondent-Corporation as Clerks after the petitioner in the years 1979, 1981 & 1982, were regularized from the date of their joining after completing training by the respondent-Corporation.

#3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner as well as the private respondents have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Inspectors on the following dates :- Sh. Varinder Kumar (Petitioner) : 31.12.2017 Sh. Vinod Kumar Duggal (Respondent No.4) : 31.01.2016 Sh. Charanjit Singh (Respondent No.5) : 28.02.2011 Smt. Avinash Kumari (Respondent No.6) : 31.05.2021 Sh. Nirmal Singh (Respondent No.7) : 29.02.2016

#4. He further submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a 'candidate' Octroi Barrier Incharge on 06.02.1979 and was required to discharge duties as and when an Octroi Clerk was on leave or whenever there was a shortage of Octroi Clerks. Thus, the petitioner was not in continuous employment during the said period and worked only on an as-needed basis. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Clerk on 89 days basis w.e.f. 26.09.1981, vide order dated 18.09.1981 (Annexure P-4/T) and was subsequently, granted regular appointment as a Clerk on 01.04.1985 (Annexure P-4/A).

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the CWP-20430-2018 relevant documents. 3

#6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner as well as private respondents have retired from the post of Inspector. The petitioner was initially appointed as a 'candidate' Octroi Barrier Incharge on

06.02.1979 merely to perform duties whenever a regular Octroi Clerk was on leave or whenever there was a shortage of Octroi Clerks. Such engagement was purely casual and contingent upon administrative exigencies and did not confer any right to continuous employment or regular appointment. Therefore, the petitioner was not in uninterrupted or continuous service during the said period. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Clerk on 89 days basis w.e.f. 26.09.1981, vide order dated 18.09.1981 and was subsequently, granted regular appointment as Clerk on 01.04.1985. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services ought to have been regularized with effect from his initial date of appointment, i.e. 02.02.1979, instead of from 01.04.1985, the date on which he was granted regular appointment as Clerk.

#7. Since the petitioner was appointed as a ‘candidate’ on

06.02.1979 only to discharge the duties of an Octroi Clerk whenever a regular Octroi Clerk was on leave or whenever there was a temporary shortage of Octroi Clerks. His engagement was, therefore, purely temporary, contingent upon administrative requirements and intended only as stop gap arrangement. He was not appointed against a sanctioned post in accordance with prescribed recruitment procedure, nor did he render uninterrupted or continuous service from initial date of appointment. In these circumstances, he cannot claim regularization or consequential service benefits from the initial date of such CWP-20430-2018 4 engagement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excise Commissioner, Karnataka Vs. V. Sreekanta : 1993(3) SCT 185, while relying upon the judgments in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607 and Masood Akhtar Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 1990(4) SCC 24, has categorically held that an employee is not entitled to claim seniority from the date of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis but he is only entitled to claim seniority from the date of his regularization.

#8. Further, the petitioner and the private respondents have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and that too from the same post i.e. Inspector. Furthermore, the petitioner never raised his claim for antedated regularization till the year 2011 when he made a representation claiming seniority over and above the private respondents by treating his date of regularization w.e.f.

02.02.1979.

#9. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

07.07.2026 kothiyal Whether speaking/reasoned: (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No