Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Education Officer dated 3.2.1997 (Annexure P.3) whereby benefit of ad hoc service towards proficiency step up on completion of eight and eighteen years service was not granted. 2. The State of Punjab had issued a circular on 1.12.1988 granting additional increments besides the regular increments on each occasion of completion of eight years service on or after appointed day i.e. 1.1.1986. In instructions dated 1.12.1988 by State of Punjab, proficiency step up to be given after eight years of service. The instructions read as under:- "Subject to suitability, beside the regular annual increment, an additional increment on each occasion on completion of 8 years service on or after the appointed day (as defined in Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 , published in Punjab Government Gazette (Extra) on 13.12.1988 against a post, in the form of proficiency step-up(s) shall be granted to all the Punjab Government employees except the members of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Deputy Superintendent of Police and Members of the Punjab Forest Service Class-III." The Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 1998 State of Punjab and Ors. v. Harjinder Kaur and Ors. has held that the ad hoc service cannot be counted for determination of seniority and for the purpose of higher pay scale after eight and eighteen years of service under the proficiency step up scheme. In view of the said judgment, there is no illegality in the order declining to consider the ad hoc service period for the grant of proficiency step up. 3 However, counsel for the petitioner raised an argument that the Honble Supreme Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr., 2000(8) S.C.C. 4. The issue which was being considered by the ^onble Supreme Court in that case was whether "regular service" is to be counted for grant of proficiency step up. The said argument is wholly untenable. The issue which was being considered by the ^onble Supreme Court in that case was whether "regular service" is to be counted for grant of proficiency step up. The said argument is wholly untenable. In Haryana Veterinarys case (supra) the Supreme Court has interpreted regular service to mean service rendered by a person after the appointment in accordance with Rules governing the recruitment to the post and the service rendered by a person on ad hoc basis or otherwise which is not in conformity with the Rules, cannot be taken into consideration either for the purpose of determining his seniority or for the purpose of computing the prescribed period of service under the circular. 4. The "service" in instructions dated 1.12.1988 means service in accordance with Rules i.e. after regular selection itself and not the service rendered on ad hoc basis. The Supreme Court has found that the benefit of higher scales of pay after eight and eighteen years of service under the proficiency step up scheme cannot be granted after taking into consideration the ad hoc service. 5. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.