The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an ad-hoc promotion granted beyond the quota prescribed under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules does not confer any right to seniority, promotion or consequential service benefits. The Court observed that service rendered on the basis of a stop-gap or ad-hoc arrangement made contrary to the governing rules cannot be counted for determining seniority or claiming other service-related advantages.
The case concerned a petition filed by an employee of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board who sought recognition of the period spent on ad-hoc promotion as a Clerk for the purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits. The petitioner had initially been appointed as a Class-IV employee and was later promoted as a Clerk on an ad-hoc basis. She continued to serve in the promoted post until her services were eventually regularized.
The petitioner contended that the period during which she worked as a Clerk on an ad-hoc basis should be counted towards seniority and related service benefits. It was argued that she had continuously discharged duties in the higher post and therefore deserved recognition of that service for promotional and financial purposes.
The Electricity Board opposed the claim and submitted that under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, only 15 percent of the posts in the cadre of Clerks and Meter Readers were reserved for promotion from eligible Class-IV non-technical employees. According to the Board, this quota had already been exhausted before the petitioner received her ad-hoc promotion. Consequently, the promotion had been granted beyond the permissible quota and was not in conformity with the governing rules.
While examining the dispute, the High Court considered the legal principles governing seniority and the effect of ad-hoc appointments and promotions. The Court observed that there is a distinction between appointments made in accordance with the recruitment rules and those made merely as temporary or stop-gap arrangements. It noted that service rendered pursuant to an ad-hoc arrangement that is not made according to the applicable rules cannot ordinarily be counted for seniority purposes.
The Court emphasized that seniority can generally be claimed from the date of appointment only when the appointment or promotion is made in accordance with the prescribed rules. Where a promotion is purely ad-hoc and intended as a temporary arrangement, the period spent in that position does not automatically create a right to seniority or other service benefits.
After examining the record, the Court accepted the Board’s contention that the petitioner’s ad-hoc promotion had been granted beyond the 15 percent quota prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations. Since the promotion was made in excess of the permissible quota, it could not be regarded as a promotion made in accordance with the rules. The Court held that service rendered under such circumstances could not be counted for seniority, promotion or consequential benefits.
The judgment further observed that service rendered outside the prescribed quota is considered fortuitous and does not create enforceable rights. The Court noted that the benefit of counting ad-hoc service towards seniority can arise only where the initial appointment or promotion is made in conformity with the applicable rules and within the quota prescribed by law.
The High Court also took note of the fact that granting the relief sought by the petitioner could potentially affect the seniority position of other employees who were not parties to the proceedings. The Court observed that disturbing existing seniority positions in such circumstances would not be appropriate, particularly when the petitioner’s promotion itself had not been made in accordance with the governing rules.
Finding no illegality in the decision of the authorities, the Court upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s claim. It concluded that the ad-hoc promotion was a stop-gap arrangement granted beyond the prescribed quota and therefore did not confer any legal right to seniority or service benefits. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that service rendered outside the framework of recruitment rules and quota provisions cannot be relied upon to claim consequential service advantages.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.