Moazzam Hayat, Member. Appellant Imran Khan was delivery agent in the postal department. His appointment was made on adhoc basis w.e.f 27.10.1994. He filed Appeal No, 19(P)CS/2008 which was decided on 26.04.2011. As a consequence of that he was reinstated and confirmed in service w,e,f,08.06.2011 and was posted as postmaster. He submitted a departmental appeal on 26.01.2011 for seniority and regularization in service from the date of his initial adhoc appointment w,e,f, 27.10.1994. This appeal was followed by a reminder dated 09.04.2011. Since no response was made to him, he was constrained to file the present appeal.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant could not be regularized and given seniority from the date of his adhoc appointment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. We have before us Esta Code 2007 Volume-I, Page-243, Serial No,
158. It clearly says that benefit of adhoc service has to be given for reckoning length of service, required for promotion. Thus under this provision the adhoc service of the appellant has to be counted for reckoning length of his service required for promotion.
5. However, his claim is for regularization and seniority from the date of his adhoc appointment. An adhoc appointment is made of a qualified person otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method ' of recruitment, pending recruitment in accordance with such method. It means that the person appointed on adhoc basis has to be a fully qualified person eligible to that post to which he has been appointed. ##E## The appellant had the qualifications, therefore, he was appointed. Hence, his adhoc service has to be counted for fixation of his pay and pension.
6. But the seniority of a civil servant has to be determined from the date of his regular appointment to the service. Reference in this regard is made to Rule 4 of Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993. It is, also held in 1993-SCMR-85 that seniority cannot be given from the date of adhoc appointment. In the circumstances, the appellant cannot be regularized nor he can be given seniority w.e.f 27:10.1994 when he was appointed on adhoc basis. All adhoc appointment can never be equated with the regular appointment. It is not made in accordance with the prescribed method whereas a regular appointment is made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Thus there is a gulf of difference between too services. Rights available to a regular employer are not available to an adhoc appointee. Appointees are never part of the main stream we shall refer to M.N. Rizvi's case 1977 SCMR 865, relied upon in 1983 SCM R 859. The relevant para reads as under:-- "Adhoc appointees truly so-called being not in accordance with the Rules applicable to the service cannot received either recognition or protection by reference to any of the Rules because they do not simply appointed to the service as such. Conferring such appointments being outside the purview of the rules cannot for any purpose be treated as conferring a benefit under the Rules'. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellant for seniority and regularization from the date of adhoc appointment does not arise out of any rule cannot be allowed."
7. The appellant shall be entitled to fixation of his pay and pensionary benefits from the date he was appointed on adhoc basis. With this direction the appeal for regularization and seniority is dismissed.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.