IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 2399 of 2008 (OA 20/95) Date of Decision : May 17, 2010 Sh. Subhash and others Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitionerss : Mr. O. P. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K. R. Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In terms of order dated 4/7/1967 (Annexure P-1) original petitioner was appointed as a Teacher on temporary basis. The appointment was in the pay scale of Rs. 60 – 175. Vide order dated 7.12.1973 he was allowed to continue and service as untrained JBT teacher. In terms of said letter he was entitled to “enjoy all benefits of a continued service accruing out of the regularisation of his service rendered by him on purely temporary basis without break for three years prior to his joining JBT training course”. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. There is no dispute that since the date of his first appointment as a teacher the original petitioner continued to serve uninterruptedly. However, for the purpose of determining his seniority, the respondents did not include the period of service rendered by him on temporary basis. This is so evident from seniority list circulated vide letters dated 30.1.1993 (Annexure P-3) and 21.12.1993 (Annexure P-7) wherein his name is shown at Sr. No. 452 whereas it ought to have been at Sr. No. 121. The original petitioner has also not been given consequential benefits. Now the original petitioner has expired and his legal heirs are pursuing the matter. 3. The Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 319 of 1997, titled as Hira Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 17.6.2008, in similar circumstances has held that Senior Scale/Selection Scale is to be allowed from the date of first appointment. 4. Further in Paras Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 this Court has again held that ad hoc service rendered by the JBT Teacher is to be taken into account for the purposes of annual increments. 5. The ratio of these decisions squarely apply to the instant case. 6. The original petitioner did not implead the persons likely to be affected as party/respondents. The petition was filed in the year 1995 hence at this stage, I am not inclined to quash the seniority list. However the respondents are directed to accord all benefits to 3 the original petitioner by taking his original date of appointment on temporary basis for the purposes of according service benefits to him. Needful be positively done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. 7. With these observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 17, 2010 (PK)