RSA-1536-1997 (O&M) [1] 101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1536-1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2025 Punjab State Electricity Board and another ...Appellants Versus Lakhbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Jasminder Pal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. On 06.06.1997, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Mr. J.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants. -- Heard Shri Sandhu and perused the record. Learned counsel argued that seniority of the members of service is required to be determined in accordance with the Public Works Department (Electricity Branch) State Service Class-III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952 which have been adopted by the appellant-Board. Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1952 seniority can be determined only amongst the members of the service and as the respondent was not appointed in a substantative capacity in the first instance, the judgments and decrees dated 27.7.1993 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Amritsar and dated 6.2.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar directing that the counting of ad hoc service of the respondent are liable to be set aside. PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1536-1997 (O&M) [2] Having thoughtfully considered the submissions of Shri Sandhu, I am of the opinion that the important question of law which will require adjudication in this appeal is whether the ad hoc service rendered by the respondent before the date of regularisation of his service can be counted for the purpose of senioritymerely because such service is countable for the purpose of experience and grant of monetary benefits. Admit. Issue notice. In the meantime, the operation of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Sub Judge, Amritsar on 27.7.1993 and the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 6.2.1997 shall remain stayed. 6.6.1997” 2. Neither anyone had appeared on behalf of the respondent on the last two dates of hearing nor any one has appeared on behalf of the respondent today. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the same, the present appeal be disposed of at this stage but liberty be granted to the appellants to revive the same in case the respondent files execution or in case respondent or his representatives comes to the office of the appellants to seek enforcement of the judgments of the trial Court and the Appellate Court. 4. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of at this stage with liberty aforesaid. 5. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order. 13.08.2025 (VIKAS BAHL) Pawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document