IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6420 of 2008 Decided on: 09.11.2010 [ Satish Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “(a) That the applicant be granted proficiency step up (PROP) with effect from 30.11.94 i.e. after the completion of 8 years of service with the respondents department.” 2. In the reply at Para-3, it is stated as follows:- “The applicant is not at all aggrieved by any act of omission and commission on part of the replying respondent department. But to the contrary, the benefit of proficiency step-up is not extended to the applicant. It is submitted that the benefit in question was admissible only in favour of such employees who rendered services prior to 31.12.83. Now, the Government of H.P. vide their letter dated 4.4.90 (copy being annexed as R-1) clarified that the period of 8/18 years services is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis. Therefore, services rendered on ad hoc basis is not to be counted for the purpose of granting proficiency increments after 31.12.1983 onwards. In other words, it is reflected in 2 the reply that the period of ad hoc services rendered upto 31.12.83 shall be taken into account for the purpose of extending the benefit of proficiency increments.” 3. However, placing reliance on Annexures P-1 to P-3, it is pointed out that ad hoc service is also to be counted for the proficiency step-up. Two instances are pointed out as per Annexures P-1 and P-2. In case the petitioner is similarly situated, as those covered by Annexures P-1 and P-2, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. This aspect of the matter is not dealt with in the reply. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and in case the petitioner is similarly situated as those covered by Annexures P-1 and P-2, similar treatment shall be given to the petitioner also. The needful be done by the first respondent within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), November 09, 2010 Judge (BSS/Tilak) 3