IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11378/2011-H Decided on:22.12.2011 ___________________________________________________ Surender Kumar son of Sh. Jai Dyal, resident of village Moin, P.O. Chintpurni, Tehsil Chintpurni, District Kangr, H.P. presently working as Shastri Government S.S.S. Bharwain, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of H.P. through its Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P., Shimla-2 2. Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. …Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Petitioner was engaged as Shastri in the year 1983 on ad hoc basis. He was regularized on 1.4.1994. The pay scale of the petitioner at the time of regularization was ` 1640/- and after the regularization, the same has been reduced to ` 1500/-. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner before regularization has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of increments and his pay scale could not be reduced after regularization from of ` 1640-2900 to 1500-2640. 2. Case of the petitioner is covered by the two judgments rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 5442/2008, titled as Ram Chand and others versus State of H.P. and another decided on 11.8.2010 and CWP (T) No. 5759/2008, titled Subhash Chand and another versus State of H.P. and others decided on 5.7.2010. 3. Accordingly, in view of above two judgments, the present petition is allowed. Respondent- State is directed to take into consideration the ad hoc service of the petitioner for the purpose of calculating increments and he shall be granted the benefit of such service. The respondents are restrained from reducing the pay scale of ` 1640-2900 to 1500-2640. 3 Respondents are further directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the aforesaid pay scale and in the corresponding scales after revision of pay scales from time to time. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 22.12.2011 *awasthi*