Ad-hoc service does not count for seniority or promotion to higher grades.

The applicant, P. Ramakrishnan, currently works as Deputy Divisional Manager, Postal Life Insurance (DDM, PLI) in the Senior Time Scale of Indian Postal Service (STS, IPoS), Group-A

He was promoted to Junior Time Scale of Indian Postal Service (JTS, IPoS), Group-A on an ad-hoc basis from July 13, 2006, to April 3, 2008.

His regular promotion to JTS, Group-A was effective from April 4, 2008.

He sought to have his ad-hoc service counted as regular service for all purposes, including advancement of promotions to the higher cadre of STS (Senior Time Scale) from April 1, 2013, to April 1, 2010, along with monetary benefits.

The applicant based his claim on the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 826/2012 (A. Mukundan v. Union of India), which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that ad-hoc service could be counted as regular service for all purposes.

His representation to the 1st respondent on June 11, 2021, seeking this benefit was not acted upon, leading him to file OA No. 963/2021.

This Tribunal disposed of OA No. 963/2021, directing the authority to pass an order on his representation.

Subsequently, the 2nd respondent rejected his claim via an order dated April 13, 2022.

The respondents contended that ad-hoc service cannot be counted as regular service based on DoPT's OM dated April 3, 2013, which states that ad-hoc appointments do not create a claim for regular appointment, seniority, or eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

They further argued that the Ernakulam Bench's order concerned Non-functional Up-gradation and grade pay in Postal Services, Group 'B', which is distinct from the applicant's request for promotion to the next grade in Group 'A'.

The ad-hoc promotion order dated June 28, 2006, explicitly stated that the arrangement was temporary and ad-hoc and would not confer any claim for seniority or promotion to a higher grade.

Whether the ad-hoc service rendered by the applicant in the cadre of Junior Time Scale of Indian Postal Service, Group-A, from July 13, 2006, to April 3, 2008, should be counted as regular service for the purpose of advancement of promotions to the Senior Time Scale (STS).

Whether the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 826/2012 (A. Mukundan v. Union of India) is applicable to the applicant's case to count ad-hoc service as regular service for promotion to a higher cadre.

The Tribunal applied the principles laid down in DoPT's O.M. No.22011/3/75-Estt.(D) dated October 29, 1975, reiterated in O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated March 30, 1988, and O.M. No.28036/1/2001-Estt. (D) dated July 23, 2001, and further affirmed by DoPT OM dated April 3, 2013, which consistently state that an ad-hoc appointment does not bestow a claim for regular appointment, nor does the service rendered on an ad-hoc basis count for seniority in that grade or eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

The Tribunal also considered the specific Recruitment Rules of the Indian Postal Service (IPoS), Group 'A', where the President of India is the competent authority for appointments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim was not tenable because the core legal principle, consistently articulated by the DoPT from 1975 onwards, dictates that ad-hoc service does not count towards regular appointment, seniority, or eligibility for promotion to a higher grade.

The ad-hoc promotion order itself, dated June 28, 2006, explicitly stated that the arrangement was "purely on temporary and adhoc basis" and would "not confer on them any claim for seniority in the grade or for promotion to higher grade".

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant's case from the A. Mukundan v. Union of India judgment, noting that the latter concerned eligibility for Grade Pay in Postal Service Group B, while the applicant sought promotion to the Senior Time Scale of the Indian Postal Service (IPoS) in Group A, a fundamentally different issue.

The Tribunal emphasized that appointments to IPoS Group A require a presidential order, and the June 28, 2006, memo from the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, was merely an ad-hoc promotion to meet a contingent situation, not a regular appointment to Group A service.

The applicant was only appointed to Indian Postal Service, Group A, through the presidential order dated April 4, 2008.

Therefore, the order of ad-hoc promotion was contrary to the stated policy of DoPT on ad-hoc promotion, making the claim for counting ad-hoc service for STS of Group-A service untenable.

The Tribunal concluded that the present case is distinct from the precedent cited by the applicant, and the ad-hoc promotion order was contrary to the DoPT's consistent policy on ad-hoc appointments.

The OA was deemed devoid of merits.