JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to count/add the entire officiation period of the petitioner towards seniority on the post of Upper Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as “UDC”) and further to re-fix the seniority in the gradation/seniority list, and to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that undisputedly the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as “LDC”) in Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, Haldwani, District Nainital; vide order dated 23.3.1987, Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, petitioner along with three other LDCs was promoted purely on ad hoc basis on the post of UDC in the pay-scale payable to the UDCs; thereafter vide order dated 12.1.2001, the petitioner and other ad hoc UDCs were regularized/regularly promoted on the post of UDC with effect from 29.12.2000; vide order dated 30.3.2001, the petitioner and others, who were regularly appointed/promoted as UDCs with effect from 29.12.2000 were given upgraded pay-scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 with effect from 29.12.2000; while preparing the seniority list of the UDCs, seniority of the petitioner was fixed with effect from 29.12.2000 i.e. the date when the petitioner was appointed/promoted on regular basis on the post of UDC, and his past services on the post of UDC, which he has discharged on the basis of ad hoc promotion, were not counted. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and have carefully perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, although the order of the ad hoc promotion dated 23.3.1987 clearly stipulates that petitioner and three others were being promoted on the post of UDC purely on ad hoc basis for a period of three months or till the time regular arrangement is made for the post of UDC, however, the fact remains that the petitioner was allowed to work pursuant to the order dated 23.3.1987 for long 13 years till he was regularly appointed/promoted vide order dated 12.1.2001 with effect from 29.12.2000. 5. 5. Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 , in paragraph No. 47 (A) & (B) has held as under : “47. To sum up, we hold that : (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Sumnayan and others v. Limi Niri and others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 791 , in paragraph no. 44, has held as under : “44. We may here also appropriately refer to another decision of this Court in G.P. Doval v. Govt. of U.P. [ (1984) 4 SCC 329 ] wherein this Court held that regularization of the services of a person, whose initial appointment although not in accordance with the prescribed procedure but late on approved by an authority having power and jurisdiction to do so would always relate back to the dates of their initial appointment. Para 13 is reproduced hereinbelow: 13. If the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure but later on the appointee is approved making his appointment regular, it is obvious commonsense that in the absence of a contrary rule, the approval which means confirmation by the authority which had the authority, power and jurisdiction to make appointment or recommend for appointment, will relate back to the date on which first appointment is made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. That has not been done in this case.” 7. That has not been done in this case.” 7. From the dictums of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred hereinabove, it is, thus, clear that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation; and where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority; and if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. 5 8. In the case in hand, although the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 23.3.1987 only for three months or till the period regular arrangement is made on the post, but the fact remains that he was continued and was allowed to serve as UDC for long 13 years before he was confirmed/regularly promoted on the post of UDC on 30.3.2001. 9. Moreover, vide Office Memorandum dated 4.11.1992, Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, Department of Personnel, Training & Pension, Government of India was pleased to make policy that if a person is appointed on ad hoc as a stop-gap arrangement and is allowed to continue for long, his seniority shall be counted from the date of his ad hoc appointment and not from the date of his regularization. 10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, service of the petitioner should be counted on the post of UDC for the purpose of seniority from 23.3.1987 i.e. the date when the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment/promotion on the post of UDC. Since, all other UDCs are not before this Court, therefore, I direct the respondent to decide the seniority of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law after hearing all concerns, who are going to be adversely affected, and such exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of 120 days from today. 11. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.