Tulsi Ram vs Union of India

Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.

1.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 ad hoc 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 ad hoc basis on the posts indicated against each under the terms and conditions as

mentioned in para 2 below :

S. No. Name & Designation Post & Scale of pay which promoted. Post against which promoted

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X + +

Sh. Tulsi Ram Dhar Orderly L.D.C. (260400) Against the post vacated by Sh.M.M. Ganai on his promotion to the post of U.D.C.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X + +

The above ad hoc promotions 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 ad hoc basis in the posts will not count for the purpose of seniority in the grade nor for 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

without assigning any reason therefor. 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 AI (I) Super inteferee (NonPlan).

(A.H. Khan)

Director of Census Operations

Jammu and Kashmir.

So far as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned they came to be promoted/appointed vide order dated 16th 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 on the post of Lower Division Clerks and are getting the increments and other benefits. They further submit that they

are still being wrongly considered as ad hoc arrangement employee.

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

that this would not confer any benefit on the petitioners.

The above question was considered by this Court in SWP No. 103/98 decided on 4th May 99, Bal Krishan v. Union of India and ors. In the

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

Supreme Court reported as Narender Chadha and others v. Union of India and ors., AIR 1986 SC 638 and also to a decision of this Court

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

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

India and ors., AIR 1986 SC 638, employee was working on ad hoc 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

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 avoid unjust results.

Again the view expressed by this Court in the case of A.R. Qureshi v. State of J&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 decade. 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 him back would not be in line with the spirit of the decision referred to above..

Again, directions were given by this Court for regularising 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 Haryana v. Piara

Singh, 1992(3) SCT 201 (SC) : AIR 1992 SC 2130 is taken note of, an employee is entitled to regularisation if a vacancy exists and if he has put

in 8 to 10 years of service.

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

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

ii) That an ad hoc arrangement cannot be allowed to continue for years to come.

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

Efficiency bar. Therefore, to say that they still continue to hold the post on ad hoc 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.