IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No.12506 of 2008 Decided on: June 3, 2011 Dharam Chand ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was appointed as TGT (Arts), on adhoc basis, in the year 1981. He continued to work on adhoc basis, with breaks of a day or two, after every six months till 5.3.1986, when his services were terminated, because of a regular hand having been appointed against the post to which he was appointed. He was re-engaged, again on adhoc basis, w.e.f. 16.4.1986, when some vacancy of TGT(Arts) became available. His services were regularized w.e.f. 28.3.1987. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 3. Petitioner, in the present petition, claims that he be treated to be in service during the period between 5.3.1986, when his services were terminated, on account of a regular hand having joined in his place, to 16.4.1986, when he was re-engaged on adhoc basis. 4. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that petitioner cannot claim that he be treated working as teacher, during the aforesaid period from 5.3.1986 to 16.4.1986, when his services were terminated on 5.3.1986 and he was re-appointed on 16.4.1986. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been paid salary for the period from 5.3.1986 to 16.4.1986, by the respondents, pursuant to some instructions that had been issued in compliance with a judgment of this Court. 6. Judgment of this Court was that there should be no notional breaks in the case of government servants, appointed on adhoc basis, as such breaks defeat the legitimate right of government servants to claim the benefit of adhoc service. 7. In the case of the petitioner, his services were terminated on 5.3.1986 not to cause any notional breake, but on account of a regular hand having joined in his place. He remained out of service from 5.3.1986 to 16.4.1986, on account of non-availability of post. He was re-engaged on É3É 16.4.1986, when some vacancy became available and his services were regularized w.e.f. 28.3.1987. 8. In view of the above stated position, which clearly shows that this was not a case of notional breake to defeat the claim of the petitioner for counting adhoc service, but on account of a regular h and having joined and there being no post available for accommodating him, petition is dismissed. June 3, 2011(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.