IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7046 of 2011 Decided on: 31st August, 2011. Nanak Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has two grievances, (i) that the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner as JBT is not counted as continued service and (ii) that the ad hoc service followed by regular service as PET is not counted for the purpose of increments and pension. As far as the ad hoc service as JBT is concerned, the same will be counted as qualifying service for pension but not for gratuity. As far as ad hoc service followed by regular service as PET, the same shall be counted for pension and increments in view of the decision of this Court in LPA No.36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State. 2 The needful action in light of what is stated above shall be taken by the second respondent/competent authority within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 31st August, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr) Judge. 3