Kesar Chand vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 June, 1988
However, the question which survives for consideration
is whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of benefit
of ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner on the post of
Clerk without any interruption in the Panchayat
Department as a Clerk. It is appropriate to mention that
the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on
26.6.1970 and he served as such upto 28.2.1973. He
joined as Clerk in Transport Department on having been
selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board
w.e.f 1.3.1973. It is well settled that ad hoc service
followed by regular service is to be considered as
qualifying service for the purposes of pension and
pensionary benefits. The aforementioned view has been
taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar
Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988(2)PLR 223. In
pursuance to the view taken by the Full Bench, the State
of Haryana has substituted Rule 3.17 by incorporation of
a new rule namely 3.17(A). Even a perusal of the
aforementioned rule would show that all uninterrupted
adhoc service rendered by an employee is to count as
qualifying service for the purposes of pension. Rule 3.17
(A)(g) as substituted is reproduced hereunder for facility
of reference :