Ad Hoc Promotion Made In Excess Of Quota, As Stop-Gap Arrangement, Doesn't Confer Any Right To Claim Seniority: Himachal Pradesh High Court

A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi held that ad hoc promotion made in excess of prescribed quota and as a stop-gap arrangement does not confer any right to claim seniority from the date of such ad hoc service.

Background Facts

The appellant was an employee of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB). She was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of Clerk on 28.06.1991. This promotion was made in excess of the prescribed 15% quota meant for Class-IV employees. It was only a stop-gap arrangement due to an acute shortage of Clerks.

The employee was granted regular promotion to the post on 17.11.1995. Then she sought seniority as a Clerk from the date of her initial ad hoc promotion. Her claim was rejected by the authorities. She filed a writ petition before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. However, the Tribunal was abolished. Therefore, her petition was transferred to the High Court. A Single Judge dismissed her writ petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the appeal before the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

It was argued by the employee that her services rendered on an ad hoc basis should be counted for the purpose of seniority. It was further contended that the Board had issued instructions prescribing the manner in which ad hoc service was to be counted for seniority.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent Board that the order dated 28.06.1991, wherein employee was promoted on ad hoc basis, Clause-2 specified that the offer of appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and that the seniority for the category of Class-III employees and their initial appointment which is being considered in excess of quota, will have no bearing on the account.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the employee's promotion was made in excess of the prescribed quota. It was not in accordance with the Rules. It was further observed that the offer of appointment itself contained a specific clause clarifying that the ad hoc appointment would not confer any right to claim seniority.

It was observed by the Division Bench that there was acute shortage of Clerks in the HPSEB-Board due to the ban imposed by the State of Himachal Pradesh on the direct recruitment. It was further observed that the employee was well aware of the ad hoc exigencies, on the basis of which she had been granted the benefit of promotion.

Relying on the cases of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Keshav Chandra Joshi Vs. Union of India, it was held by the Court that benefit of ad hoc service cannot be granted for the purpose of seniority when the promotion was not made as per the rules.

It was held that promotion was purely a stop-gap arrangement which was made in exigencies of service, therefore, it did not confer any legal right to claim the benefit of the service. It was further held that the claim for grant of seniority as Clerk was not sustainable, as the employee had already been granted regular promotion and no retrospective promotion could be granted.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Salochna Devi Vs. H.P.S.E.B.L.

Case No. : CMP No. 757 of 2026 in LPA No. 317 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellant : Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ranjana Sharma, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order