LPA-1666-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 172 LPA-1666-2026 Date of decision: 01.07.2026 ILA JOHAR (Deceased) Through Legal Heir ARUN KUMAR JOHAR ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and Anr. .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ajey Bishnoi, Advocate, for the appellant. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.05.2026 in CWP-11439-2026 by which the plea raised by the petitioner that the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner, should be taken into account towards the grant of seniority in the cadre of Associate Professor in the Haryana Education Service (for short- ‘H.E.S’) Group B and that her seniority should be revised in the gradation list accordingly, granting her all the consequential notional benefits as have been extended to similarly situated officers, has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, ILA JOHAR got her services regularized on 31 December, 1990, and attained the age of superannuation after rendering satisfactory service as Assistant Professor in the college when she retired on 30.06.2020, and has already unfortunately died in December 2024 due to state III cancer, but the benefit of ad hoc service rendered from 15.10.1985 till 31.12.1990 was never ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.08 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1666-2026 2 extended to her towards seniority which is causing prejudice and the learned Single Judge has wrongly rejected the said claim on the ground of delay whereas similarly situated employees were given the same benefit pursuant to the Government order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure R-7) in compliance of the orders of this Hon’ble High Court in CWP-8604 of 2017 titled as Surendra Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of Haryana and others dated 09.09.2010 along with bunch of writ petitions, subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and further in CWP No.4429 of 2020 titled as Virender Singh Malhan and others Versus State of Haryana dated 23.05.2022. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records with his able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that it is a settled principle of law that ad hoc service rendered by an employee cannot be counted towards seniority. Any benefit given to any other person contrary to the settled principle of law cannot be cited as a precedent to seek the claim from the Court of law. The law on the issue which is settled that the ad hoc service/temporary service can only be counted towards the qualifying service but the same cannot be treated to form a part of the seniority to claim the benefit of promotion and other consequential benefits. 5. Further, after the duration when her services were regularized in the year 1990 till her retirement, she never raised any claim/grievance qua the same and seeking service benefit after retirement, is not permissible. 6. Further even if we assume for the sake of argument, that some of the employees were granted the benefit on the basis of the orders passed by the Court as stated hereinbefore by the learned counsel for the ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.08 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1666-2026 3 petitioner, it is a conceded fact before this Court that the grant of benefit of seniority on the basis of ad hoc service was never agitated by ILA JOHAR while she was rendering her in service on the said post. That being so, claiming the said benefit so as to claim retrospective promotions, and that too after her retirement, cannot be entertained and the same has rightly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 07.05.2026. No other argument has been raised. 7. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 01, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.08 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document