Ad Hoc Service Under Enabling Rules Followed by Regularization Counts Towards Seniority.

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer-II (Electrical) and subsequently promoted to Junior Engineer-I on an ad hoc basis on March 20, 1988

His services were regularized in the same post on December 31, 1992

The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking to count his ad hoc service for seniority and consequential benefits, such as promotion under restructuring

The CAT initially dismissed the application as time-barred, but upon remand by the High Court, dismissed it again on the grounds that multiple unrelated reliefs were claimed and that ad hoc service could not be counted per Railway Board Circulars

The petitioner challenged this dismissal via the present writ petition.

1. Whether services rendered on an ad hoc basis, followed by regularization, should be counted for the purpose of determining seniority

2. Whether the reliefs claimed were "multiple" and "unrelated" so as to be hit by Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987

The court followed the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, which established that if an initial appointment is made according to rules (even if ad hoc) and followed by regularization, the period of officiating service must be counted for seniority

It specifically relied on T. Vijayan & Ors. v. Divisional Railway Manager & Ors., which interpreted Rule 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Vol. I) to hold that ad hoc promotions given due to administrative exigencies pending regular selection are in consonance with the rules and must be counted toward seniority

The High Court found that the Petitioner’s ad hoc promotion in 1988 was made pursuant to the enabling provisions of Rule 216 of the Manual and was followed by uninterrupted regular service from 1992

The Court criticized the Tribunal for failing to identify any specific legal deficiency in the petitioner's ad hoc appointment that would disqualify it from being counted

Applying the ratio in T. Vijayan, the Court reasoned that since the promotion was under a valid rule, it could not be deemed de hors the rules

Regarding the procedural objection, the Court held that the reliefs were intrinsically interconnected, as the claim for restructuring and promotion was a direct consequence of the sought seniority

The Court determined that the Tribunal had taken a "hyper-technical view" regarding the multiplicity of reliefs

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the respondents to update the seniority list and grant consequential benefits, including consideration for restructuring/promotion as of 1993, within 90 days

The writ petition was allowed