IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 2711, 2712 and 2789 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.6.2010 CWP No. 2711 of 2010 Murari Lal ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and Another …. Respondents. CWP No. 2712 of 2010 Suresh Kumar ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ..Respondents. CWP No. 2789 of 2010 Satya Pal Singh ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P.Chauhan , Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The case pertains to issue of counting of entire tenure service. We find that the issue involved in this petition has already been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed in CWP (T) No. 4357 of 2008 and other connected matters. The text of the judgment reads as follows:- 2. “The facts necessary for decision of the cases are that each of the petitioners, in the aforesaid writ petitions, was appointed as Physical Education Teacher during the years 1986to 1988. The petitioners were appointed on tenure basis against leave vacancies. However, it is not disputed that in 2 fact they worked without break till the year 1995 when the State of Himachal Pradesh took a policy decision to regularize the services of all tenure holders of Physical Education Teachers. After their regularization, the petitioners made representations that the services rendered by them on tenure basis should be counted for the purposes of grant of increments, as has been done in the case of ad hoc appointments. 3. The stand of the State in its reply is only that the representations of the petitioners were forwarded to the Government and the Government took a decision that the request of the tenure teachers that they be granted increments by taking into consideration the services rendered on tenure basis had been rejected. Other than this, no ground has been given as to why these representations were being rejected. 4. Mr. R.S. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a letter dated 27th September, 1977, issued by the Director of Education, relevant portion of which reads just follows:- “I am directed to refer your letter NO.EDN-H(2)B(2)6/00-III dated the 12th September, 1977 on the above cited subject and to say that there is a break in ad hoc service and regular appointment, the period of ad hoc service will not count towards increment, but if the ad hoc appointment is followed by immediate regular appointment and there is no break in service the ad hoc service will be counted towards increment in the normal course.” 5. A perusal of this letter clearly shows that if the ad hoc appointment is followed by regular appointment and there is no break of service, the ad hoc services will be counted towards the grant of annual increments. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 9th February, 1978 sent by Director of Education, wherein the terms tenure and ad hoc appointment have both been used by side by side. Relevant portion of this letter reads thus:- “With reference to this Directorate Memo No. 8-3/73-H (Estt. Branch) dated March, 1977 it is stated that in the matter of calculation of tenure/ad hoc period of service for the purpose of grant of annual towards increment this clarification is being given to you and to the offices under your that this period shall normally be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increment only where there is no break in between regular and tenure/ad hoc appointment and in those case where there is break in between regular and tenure/ad hoc appointment the ad hoc/tenure period shall not be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increment. In future only those such cases of teachers may be sent for grant of annual increment keeping in view the clarification received from the Govt.” 6. This also clearly shows that both the tenure and ad hoc appointment are being treated similarly by the State Government. It decided to take into consideration the uninterrupted ad hoc/tenure period of service followed by regular appointment for the grant of annual increment. 3 Reference may also be made in this regard to a letter dated 20th December, 1989 sent by the Director of Education, in which the terms ad hoc and tenure services have been used alternatively to each other, relevant portion of which reads as below:- “The benefit of ad hoc/tenure services with outbreak and followed by regular appointment can count towards increments and such cases may be sent to this directorate for necessary action.” 7. It is thus clear that the Government was not making difference between ad hoc and tenure appointment. Both were being treated identically. Even otherwise, as per the instructions laid down in the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, ad hoc service has been defined as follows:- “Any appointment which is made without following the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules or the prescribed procedure is to be termed as “adhoc appointment”. 8. It is thus, clear that there is virtually no difference between ad hoc and tenure appointment. Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General urged that the tenure appointment was made only against leave vacancy and therefore, this cannot be considered similar to the ad hoc appointment. I am not at all impressed with this argument. The fact remains that right from their initial appointment on tenure basis between 1986 to 1988 till their regularization on 20th October, 1995, the petitioners worked uninterruptedly as Physical Education Teachers without break. This shows that there were jobs available. 9. Reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court in Paras Ram vs. State of J.P. and another, CWP(T)No. 7712 of 2008, decided on 19.5.2009, wherein in the case of an ad hoc employee this court has directed that the ad hoc period of service be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increments. 10. Keeping in view the letters of the Director of Education, referred to above and the judgment of this Court in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008, I feel that the writ petitions must be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to take into consideration the un-interrupted tenure services rendered by the petitioners prior to their regularization for the purpose of calculation of grant of annual increments. The arrear due and payable to the petitioners be paid to them within three months from today, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date the amounts fall due till payment thereof. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There shall, however, be no order as to costs”. We are informed that the said judgment has been implemented. In case the petitioners are similarly situated and in case the judgment has been implemented by the State, the petitioners herein shall 4 also be entitled to the same treatment. Therefore, these writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of the judgment referred above, so also the pending applications. (Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. June 15, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks/grs) Judge.