IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 265 of 2011 with CWPs No. 270, 1127, 1139, 1140, 1376, 1653, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1793, 1912, 2050, 2062, 2234, 3058, 3063, 3068, 3071, 3646, 3905, 3908, 3909, 3911, 3914, 4141, 4142, 4938, 4939 and 4945 of 2011. Decided on: 29.7.2011. __________________________________________________________ 1. Roshan Lal s/o Sh. Kauda Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. 2. Ratia Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. 3. Puran Dutt vs. State of H.P. and ors. 4. Purshotam Dutt vs. State of H.P. and anr. 5. Lekh Raj & anr. vs. State of H.P. and ors. 6. Kishori Lal vs. State of H.P. and anr. 7. Shanti Devi vs. State of H.P. and anr. 8. Pana Devi vs. State of H.P. and anr. 9. Roshan Lal s/o Sh.Naru Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. 10. Hem Lata Sharma vs. State of H.P. and anr. 11. Bansi Lal vs. State of H.P. and anr. 12. Roshan Lal s/o Sh.Gulab Singh vs. State of H.P. and anr. 13. Ramesh Dutt vs. State of H.P. and anr. 14. Sohan Lal vs. State of H.P. and anr. 15. Hari Ram Sharma vs. State of H.P. and anr. 16. Beli Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. 17. Kripa Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. 18. Bal Krishan Sharma vs. State of H.P. and anr. 19. Sohan Lal Premi vs. State of H.P. and anr. 20. Sita Ram Sharma vs. State of H.P. and anr. 21. Nand Lal Pathak vs. State of H.P. and anr. 22. Nain Singh vs. State of H.P. and anr. 23. Jai Lal Sharma vs. State of H.P. and anr. 24. Mast Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. 25. Veena Devi vs. State of H.P. and anr. 2 26. Lal Chand vs. State of H.P. and anr. 27. Lachhmi Singh vs. State of H.P. and anr. 28. Saniya Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. 29. Lal Singh vs. State of H.P. and anr. 30. Ghasi Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Ms. Archana Dutt, Mr. L.N. Sharma, Mr. Surinder Saklani, Mr. V.D. Khidta, Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.AG. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioners herein were originally trained as Drawing Master (DM)/Language Teacher (LT)/Physical Education Teacher (PET)/Shastri. However, since there were no vacant posts of such categories with the State Government and instead posts of Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) were lying vacant, the petitioners were offered appointment against the post of JBT on ad hoc/tenure basis and they accepted the same. 2. After working against the post of JBT for sometime, some of them were absorbed against regular posts of JBT by grant of special JBT certificates without there being any break. Some others were later on appointed against their substantive disciplines on ad hoc/tenure basis and were later on regularised as such. Still some others who were initially appointed against JBT, then as LT and thereafter as Shastri on ad hoc/tenure basis were ultimately regularized as Shastri without any break at any stage. 3 3. In some cases the incumbents were initially appointed against their substantive disciplines on ad hoc/tenure basis and later on their services were regularised as such without any break. 4. The petitions have been filed with the prayers that ad hoc/tenure service rendered by the petitioners against JBT/LT/PET/Shastri which was followed by uninterrupted regular service may be counted for the purpose of increment and pension. 5. There is no reply as yet. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit at the very outset that the cases of the petitioners are covered under judgments dated 15.7.2010, rendered by this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram versus State of H.P. and others and 16.12.2010, in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. and another and the connected matters. 7. In view of the above, if on facts the cases of the petitioners are covered under the judgments, dated 15.7.2010, rendered by this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram versus State of H.P. and others and 16.12.2010, in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. and another and the connected matters and if the same have attained finality and have been implemented and they are similarly situate, the petitioners shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgments shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgments referred to hereinabove by the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, if so desired. CWP No. 2050 of 2011: 8. Interim order, dated 7.7.2011, shall stand merged with the final order. 4 CWP No. 2062 of 2011: 9. Interim order, dated 25.7.2011, shall stand merged with the final order. CWP No. 3063 of 2011: 10. As regards the prayer of the petitioner for grant of benefit of sterilization increment with effect from 31.3.1996 till his retirement on 31.8.2007 is concerned, it has been held by this Court in several cases that a purposive interpretation in terms of the population control policy is to be taken and that there cannot be any denial of such benefits on the ground that at the time of sterilization petitioner was in ad hoc service. Hence the petitioner shall be granted the benefit. 11. The writ petitions stand disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) July 29, 2011. Judge. (cr)