Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma dismissed a writ petition by a state electricity board employee seeking seniority and other service benefits for an ad-hoc stint as Clerk prior to regularisation. The petitioner challenged the board’s rejection of her request to count service from June 1991 to November 1995 for promotion, arrears and related benefits. The Court upheld the rejection order, finding that the ad-hoc promotion was granted when the 15% promotional quota earmarked for eligible Class-IV staff was already exceeded, making the arrangement outside the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations. Justice Sharma said that an ad-hoc promotion beyond the quota does not create a legally enforceable claim to benefits for service rendered outside the regulatory framework.

The petition was filed by a Class-IV employee of a statutory electricity board, challenging the rejection of her claim for counting ad hoc service rendered on promotion to the post of Clerk for the purpose of seniority and consequential service benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon and was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the clerical cadre, where she continued uninterruptedly until her regularisation several years later.

Also Read: Article 21 Speedy Trial Right Applies Regardless Of Alleged Offence; Continued Undertrial Custody Without Trial Commencement Or Reasonable Progress Turns Punitive: Supreme Court

The grievance arose when the employer declined to reckon the ad hoc period for seniority, promotion, arrears, and other benefits. The rejection was based on the ground that the ad hoc promotion had been granted in excess of the quota prescribed under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for Class-IV employees.

In response, the employer filed an affidavit stating that only a fixed percentage of posts in the clerical cadre were earmarked for promotion from Class-IV staff and that, even prior to the petitioner’s promotion, the quota had already been exceeded. A tabular statement of cadre strength and promotions was placed on record to support this assertion.

The petitioner contended that uninterrupted continuation on the promoted post until regularisation entitled her to counting of the entire service period. The dispute thus centered on whether ad hoc service rendered dehors the quota and recruitment rules could confer enforceable rights relating to seniority and service benefits.

The Court examined whether ad hoc or stop-gap service rendered contrary to recruitment rules could be counted for seniority and other service benefits. Referring to settled principles, the Court recorded that “where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.”

After analysing the factual record, the Court noted that “as per the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 15% posts in the promotional post of Clerks/Meter Readers were to be filled up from amongst eligible Class-IV [Non-Technical Staff].” The Court accepted the employer’s stand that “against the earmarked 15% quota, promotions had already exceeded the permissible limit even prior to the petitioner’s ad hoc promotion.”

On the effect of promotions made beyond quota, the Court observed that “service rendered outside the quota will disentitle any employee for such service for seniority,” and further that “service not rendered against a vacancy or service rendered beyond the quota will be fortuitous, which cannot be counted towards seniority.”

The Court also addressed the argument of uninterrupted continuation, stating that “the benefit of ad hoc promotion can only be extended for the purposes of seniority in case the initial ad hoc promotion is made in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules and within the quota prescribed.”

On the issue of third-party rights, the Court recorded that “acceding to the prayer of the petitioner shall certainly unsettle the seniority and shall tantamount to passing an adversarial order behind the back of persons who have not been impleaded.”

Finally, the Court noted that the petitioner had accepted the terms of ad hoc promotion and held that “having accepted the conditions of ad hoc service, the petitioner cannot turn around and claim a different status altogether.”

Also Read: Drivers Must Slow For Pedestrians And Cattle; Failure Constitutes Negligence: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court directed that “Rejection Orders dated 20.05.2010 [Annexure P-1] is upheld. “The claim of petitioner for seniority as Clerk from date of initial adhoc promotion on 28.06.1991 which was not as per Rules and in excess of quota and was stop-gap, is declined.”

“The claim of petitioner for seniority without impleading persons who may be affected by the outcome of this petition, disentitles the petitioner for any relief.” In addition, it directed that “the claim of petitioner for counting of adhoc service w.e.f. 28.06.1991 to 17.11.1995 for promotion and other service benefits is disallowed when, service benefits are available for service rendered, against vacancy within quota and not otherwise [as in instant case]. Parties to bear their respective costs,” and “pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Salochna Devi v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:42291
Case Number: CWPOA No. 3788 of 2019
Bench: Justice Ranjan Sharma