State of Punjab vs Suresh Kumar and others

M.M. Kumar,J.—The instant appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent by the State of Punjab is directed against judgement dated 15.9.2011 rendered by a learned Single Judge this Court whereby order dated 8.9.2009 (P.9) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has been quashed. On the basis of the afore-mentioned order dated 8.9.2009, date of promotion of the writ petitioner- respondent as Assistant was postponed from 28.8.1987 to 2.2.1989. As a consequence his seniority in the cadre of Assistants has also been disturbed.

The short issue raised by the writ petitioner- respondent was whether statutory service rules titled as Punjab Financial Commissioner''s Secretariat (Class III ) Service Rules, 1986 require 5 years ''service'' or ''experience'' on the post of Clerk for promotion on the post of Assistant. According to Rule 8 of the Rules read with Appendix ''C'' a Clerk with 5 years experience and who has qualified the test as per the rules of Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 was considered eligible for promotion. The learned Single Judge held that for the purpose of 5 years experience the adhoc service rendered by the writ petitioner- respondent as Clerk would also qualify and on that basis he was earlier promoted as Assistant on 28.9.1987 (P.2). Even the seniority list on the basis of the date of promotion was issued in the year 1986. However, the same was sought to be disturbed vide impugned order dated 8.9.2009 (P.9) by accepting the representation made by private respondents. According to the order dated 8.9.2009 (P.9) the proposition accepted by the Department was that adhoc service rendered by the writ petitioner- respondent prior to his regular appointment was not to be counted for the purposes of experience. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from paras 9 and 10 of the judgement which reads thus:

(9) The controversy, however, is required to be settled with reference to the provisions of the 1986 Rules for appointment to the post of Assistant. As has been noticed earlier, Appendix-C provides that a Clerk with minimum five years experience as such and on qualifying the Assistant Grade Examination becomes eligible for promotion as Assistant against 75% promotion quota. The phrase ''experience'' is different than the expression ''service''. The aforestated Rule does not require five years ''service'' to be possessed by a Clerk to become eligible for promotion as Assistant. It requires only five years ''experience''. It is well settled that the experience gained by an employee even while working on adhoc basis is as good he earns while working on regular basis. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist on adhoc basis through a competitive process on 15.10.1981. The service rendered by him as an adhoc Clerk till his regular appointment on 02.02.1984 is an actual and valid experience. The order dated 28.09.1987 reveals that the petitioner was promoted along with four other Clerks as they had qualified the Assistant Grade Examination. The petitioner was admittedly having five years ''experience'' as a Clerk at the time of his promotion on 28.09.1987. Thus, no fault can be found with his promotion as an Assistant. (10) The contention raised on behalf of the private respondents that the promotion of the petitioner was ''provisional'' does not improve their case in any manner as the said condition was imposed on all the promotee(s). It is not in dispute that rest of the Assistants promoted along with the petitioner have been assigned seniority w.e.f. 28.09.1987. No different treatment can be given to the petitioner in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in that regard.

We have heard learned State counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that there is no difference between the experience gained either on regular appointment or on adhoc appointment. Therefore to say that 5 years ''experience'' as required by ''the Rules'' would not be equivalent to 5 years service as Clerk for promotion to the post of Assistant would be wholly arbitrary. We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly taken it to be well settled that experience is to be regarded equivalent whether rendered on the post by virtue of adhoc appointment or by virtue of regular appointment. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.