IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2468 of 2010 Decided on: 08.08.2011 Alka Sharma …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) CMP No. 7807 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. CWP No. 2468 of 2010 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the service rendered by her on contract basis should be taken into consideration for the purposes of grant of increments and pensionary benefits. Another relief claimed was that the petitioner should be regularized. This relief does not survive 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. since as per the preliminary submissions, the petitioner has been regularized from 01.01.2006. The only question is with regard to the entitlement in respect of increments and pensionary benefits. 3. This matter is squarely covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6041 of 2010 and connected matters, decided on 16.12.2010, wherein the Division Bench held as follows: “An appointment letter is an offer of appointment, which contains the terms of appointment. As far as contract appointment is concerned, we are informed that apart from the offer of the appointment, all the appointees have executed separate agreements also. If that be so, whole entitlement in respect of the benefits flowing out of that contract service will be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement as agreed to between the parties. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the appointing authority has used the expression as contract service, for all purposes it is temporary service. Whether a temporary appointee is entitled to count that service for the purpose of increments as qualifying service when followed without interruption by regular appointment will depend on several factors. It is for the Government ultimately to decide whether temporary service by way of contract service followed by regular appointment should be counted for the purpose of increment or as qualifying service for pension, adverting also to the submission that the very purpose of increment is appreciation of performance. It will also be open to the contract teachers to bring to the notice of the Govt. that they are now paid vacation salary.” 4. The writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions as far as contract teachers were concerned: “As far as contract teachers are concerned, the 1st respondent may consider their case for increments or for counting the service as qualifying service for pension, having regard to all relevant factors, some of which are referred to above. It will be open to the petitioners to jointly also file appropriate representations. Orders in that regard will be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment/representation.” 5. The present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 08, 2011 (rajni)