JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis vide Annexure A-1, dated 2nd July, 1969. He was appointed on regular basis vide memorandum dated 15th December, 1969, Annexure A-2. However, the period of adhoc service w.e.f. 2nd July, 1969 to 15th December, 1969 has not been counted by the respondents. 2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client is entitiled to get the adhoc period w.e.f. 2nd July, 1969 to 15th December, 1969 counted towards seniority and pensionary benefits. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the relief prayed for cannot be granted at this belated stage. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner's appointment on adhoc basis was followed by regularization. The Court is of the considered view that the period w.e.f. 2nd July, 1969 to 15th December, 1969 is required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits alone. However, this period cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority since it will affect the rights of others. The seniority list once prepared cannot be unsettled after 40 years. 6. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.S. Vankani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1714 have held as under : "25. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Further promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosed work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be un-settled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1199 : 2007 AIR SCW 1235), T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 : ( AIR 2003 SC 2000 : 2003 AIR SCW 1508) In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval's case, ( AIR 1984 SC 1527 ) (Supra), Prabhakar and others case, ( AIR 1976 SC 1093 ) G. Deendayalam, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case". 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to count the period of adhoc service w.e.f. 2nd July, 1969 to 15th December, 1969 for the purpose of pensionary benefits alone. Thereafter, the consequences shall ensure. No Costs