CWP(T) No. 8428 of 2008. 21.12.2009. Present: Mr. C.N.Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in addition to counting of ad hoc service for annual increments, the respondents may kindly be directed to give seniority to the petitioner of ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that petitioner was offered an appointment of JBT teacher on 9.1.1987 on ad hoc basis. The petitioner was regularized as JBT teacher vide order dated 1.9.1997, but the ad hoc service of the petitioner has not been counted for the purpose of annual increments and seniority. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the present case so far counting of ad hoc service of petitioner from 9.1.1987 to 31.8.1997 for annual increments is concerned is covered by the judgement titled Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. & anr. Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887. Therefore, in view of judgement rendered by a coordinate Bench in Paras Ram (supra), the respondents are directed to count the service of the petitioner from 9.1.1987 to 31.8.1997 before his regularization on 1.9.1997 for the purpose of annual increments. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to counting of ad hoc service from 9.1.1987 to 31.8.1997 for purpose of seniority, inasmuch as, the persons who are likely to be affected by giving seniority to the petitioner have not been impleaded as parties in the petition. There is substance in the objection raised by learned Senior Additional Advocate General. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is entitled to seniority of ad hoc service rendered by him is rejected. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. December 21, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.