Rajesh Sharma vs Neeru Goswami

The petitioners came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerks. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he came to be so promoted on 23rd

of May, 1980. This was a purely temporary and adhoc arrangement. This was so stated in the order dated 23rd of May 1980, copy whereof is

Annexure 'A to the petition, operative part of the order as it applies to petitioner No. 1 is being reproduced below:

Order :

The following officials are promoted on a purely temporary and adhoc basis on the post indicated against each under the terms and conditions as

mentioned in para 2 below.

The above adhoc promotion will not bestow upon the above mentioned officials any claim to regular promotion to the post against which they

have been promoted. The service rendered by them on adhoc basis in the posts will not count for the purpose of seniority in the grade nor of the

eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. These ad hoc promotion may be reserved at any time at the discretion of the competent authority

with out assigning any reason there for. The official at S. No. 1 will report to the Deputy Director Regional Census office Jammu and assume

charge of the post there joining time transfer T.A. etc. and admissible under rules is also sanctioned in favour of Sh. Bal Krishan Bhat.

The expenditure involved is debitable to the Head Al (I) Supet. Interference (Hon. Plan)

(A.H. Khan)

Director of Census Operations

Jammu and Kashmir

So far as petitioner No's 2 and 3 are concerned they came to be promoted / appointed vide order dated 16th of May 1981. Copy whereof is

annexure ""C"" to the petition. Similar stipulations were made in that order. The further fact is that the petitioners claims were considered by the

departmental promotion committee. They were allowed to cross the efficiency bar. This order is dated 20th Nov' 91. The petitioners submit that

they are continuously working in the post of Lower Division Clerks and are getting the increments and other benefits. They further submit that they

are being wrongly considered as adhoc arrangement employees.

The stand taken by respondents is that the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis, with a view to make short time arrangement. It is stated

that this would not comer any benefit on the petitioners.

The above question was considered by this court in SW No. 103/98 decided on 4th May' 99, bal Kirshan V. Union of India and others. In the

above case, it was observed that adhoc arrangement cannot be permitted to continue for years to come. Reference was made to a occasion of the

Supreme Court reports as Narender Chadha and other V. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 638 and also to decision of this Court

reported as 1997 KLJ 283, A.R. Qureshi V. State of J and K. What was said in the above case is being reproduced below:

Keeping a person on adhoc basis for fifteen years is not contemplated by law. As a matter of fact, in Narender Chadha and others. v. Union of

India and others, AIR 1986 SC 638, en employee was working on adhoc basis. He continued to work in this capacity for almost fifteen years.

Later on, his status was sought to be altered. This action of the respondent authorities was said to be bad by making following observations:

...But, we, however, make it clear that it is not our view that whenever a person is appointed in a post without following the rules prescribed for

appointed in a post without following the rules prescribed before appointment to that post, such a person may be reverted from that post. But in

the case of the kind before us where persons have been allowed to function in higher posts for 15 to 20 years with due deliberation it would be

certainly unjust to hold that they have no sort of claim to such posts and could be reverted unceremoniously or treated as persons not belonging to

the service at all, particularly where the Government is endowed with the power to relax the rules to avid unjust results.

Again in the view expressed by this court in the case of A.R. Qureshy. State of J and K 1997 SLJ 283 is also to the same effect. The writ

petitioner had continued to work on a particular post for more than a decide. It was held that it can be held that the governmental authorities had

relaxed the qualifications which were required to be possessed by the concerned employee and when the petitioner has continued to work for

almost fifteen years on a higher assignment, then to put home back would not be in line with the spirit of the decision referred to above...

Again, directions were given by this Court for regularizing the respondent writ petitioners in LPA (SW) 538/99 decided by a Division Bench of

this court on 13th Oct'99. It was observed that..."" if the view expressed by the Supreme court in the case reported as State of Harayana v. Piara

Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 is taken note of an employee is entitled to regularizations if a vacancy exists and it be put in 8 to 10 years or service.

In view of the above legal position, it is held:

i. That an employee is kept on a particular post for more than 15 years, then he acquires a right to hold that post;

ii. That an adhoc arrangement cannot be allowed to continue for years.

In the present case the petitioners have continued to hold the post for more than 15 years. They have also been granted the benefit or crossing

efficiency bar. Therefore, to say that they still continue to hold the post on adhoc basis is an argument which cannot be sustained. This petition as

such is allowed. The petitioners would be treated as having obtained regular status.

Disposed of accordingly.