IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 16284 of 2008 Judgement reserved on :14.12.2010. Date of decision: 15.12.2010. Amar Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Bharti, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This petition has been filed for a direction to respondents to count the service of the petitioner rendered on ad hoc basis from 1.6.1985 to 1.4.1994 towards annual increments. The prayer has also been made that pay of the petitioner may be ordered to be re- fixed on his regularization at that stage after adding nine annual increments of ad hoc service. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be directed to release the arrears of pay to petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed against JBT post on 5.2.1981 in Govt. Primary School, Behi Pathiar, Tehsil Jawali on ad hoc basis. The petitioner continued as such in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… different schools with 90 days appointment and after the completion of every 90 days, the respondents reappointed the petitioner for another 90 days and so on. The petitioner continued to work on ad hoc basis from 1.6.1985 without any break and worked up to 5.11.1986 against JBT post, thereafter from 6.11.1986 the petitioner started working against the vacant post of PET. 3. The petitioner during his ad hoc/ tenure service had represented to the authorities for regularization of his service as he was duly eligible for the post of PET and was working as such since long. The respondents framed a scheme for regularization of those ad hoc/ tenure teachers working in the Education Department, who had completed three years continuous service as on 31.3.1994. The petitioner had completed more than ten years ad hoc/ tenure service as on 31.3.1994, he was regularized vide office order dated 31.10.1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. The petitioner had rendered ad hoc service without break from 1.6.1985 till his regularization on 1.4.1994. 4. The service of the petitioner from 1.6.1985 was required to be counted for the purpose of increments and pay fixation when he was regularized by the respondents, but the same has not been done. The annual increment was given to the petitioner from 1995. The department vide letter dated 27.9.1977 has issued instructions that ad hoc appointment followed by regularization and if there is no break in ad hoc service then the ad hoc service is to be counted for the grant of annual increments. The respondents have given the benefit of annual increments for ad hoc services rendered without break to its employees. The petitioner has made several …3… representations for counting his ad hoc service for grant of annual increment and pay fixation but without any positive result. The petitioner has thus filed the petition by taking the plea that respondents have violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the petition by filing the reply and have stated that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis against JBT post for 90 days followed by one day break as such he remained posted w.e.f. 5.2.1981 to 1.5.1986 with regular breaks. It has also been stated that from 1.6.1985 to 5.11.1986, the petitioner served without break. Thereafter the petitioner was engaged as PET on tenure basis and he served as such w.e.f. 6.11.1986 to 31.3.1994. The service rendered before 6.11.1986 was on ad hoc basis against the post of JBT, which was not followed by immediate regular appointment on the same post and pay scale. Therefore, the question of regularization of service rendered against JBT post does not arise. Similarly, the service rendered as PET on tenure basis cannot be counted towards regular service or pension as per government letter dated 13.1.2004. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The letter dated 27.9.1977 Annexure A-3 provides that when the ad hoc appointment is followed by immediate regular appointment and there is no break in service, the ad hoc service will be counted towards increment in normal course. The letter dated 12.9.1989 Annexure A- 2 provides that Director of Primary Education, H.P. vide letter dated 7.8.1989 has intimated that government has taken a decision that …4… when the ad hoc appointment is followed by immediate regular appointment and there is no break in service, the ad hoc service will be counted towards increment in normal course. 7. In CWP (T) No. 7712 of 2008 Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. & anr., decided on 19.5.2009, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the year 1987. He was regularized on 13.11.1997. It was held that petitioner had worked uninterruptedly against the post of Junior Basic Trained teacher on ad hoc basis. The ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner before his regularization is to be counted towards annual increment. The petitioner has served the respondent- State as Junior Basic Trained Teacher from 1987, he is entitled to get the entire service counted which he has rendered on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 1987 for the purpose of annual increment before his regularization on 13.11.1997. 8. In Uma Dutt Sharma vs. State of H.P. & anr. 2010(1) Shim. L.C. 172, the petitioner was appointed on tenure basis on 21.4.1990 as Shastri, but no period was specified in the appointment letter. He worked continuously for four years, which is fairly long. It was held that in these circumstances, his appointment cannot be held to be purely on tenure basis. He is required to be treated at par with the persons appointed on ad hoc basis for all intends and purposes. The State has not maintained any distinction between ad hoc and tenure appointees at the time of regularization. The petitioner was also regularized in the year 1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. The respondents …5… were directed to count the period w.e.f. 21.4.1990 to 4.12.1995 for the purpose of increments. 9. In Ms. Thakuri Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 549, a co-ordinate Bench noticed judgement dated 19.5.2009 in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008 and respondents were directed to take into consideration the uninterrupted tenure service rendered by the petitioners prior to their regularization for the purpose of calculation of grant of annual increments. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for counting of his ad hoc service from 1.6.1985 to 1.4.1994 for annual increments and for pay fixation. The respondents in their reply have stated that petitioner has worked from 1.6.1985 to 5.11.1986 without break. He was engaged as PET on tenure basis and he worked as such w.e.f. 6.11.1986 to 31.3.1994. The service render by petitioner before 6.11.1986 was on ad hoc basis against the post of JBT. The case of the petitioner is that he was regularized on 1.4.1994, this stand of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondents. Thus petitioner has rendered service from 1.6.1985 to 31.3.1994 either on ad hoc basis or tenure basis, but it makes no difference for counting this service for the purpose of increments in view of three judgements, noticed above. The respondents are under obligation to count the ad hoc / tenure service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.1985 to 1.4.1994 for the purposes of annual increments and re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and give him arrears. 11. No other point was urged. …6… 12. The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the ad hoc/ tenure service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.1985 to 1.4.1994 for the purposes of annual increments, re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and pay arrears to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of supply of copy of this judgement by the petitioner to the competent authority, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest to petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum on such arrears till payment. December 15, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.