IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8273 of 2008. Decided on: 05.07.2010. _____________________________________________________ Sarojani Bansal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The petitioner is seeking the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by her with effect from 10.9.1981 to 31.3.1994 towards seniority and increments. 2. So far as relief No.1 is concerned, the same cannot be granted in view of law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association versus State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715. In the instant case, the proper procedure as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules was not followed. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. The cases of the similarly situate 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - persons were not considered and rather it was local arrangement. Consequently, the petitioner’s service rendered on ad hoc basis with effect from 10.9.1981 to 31.3.1994 cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. 3. So far as the second relief is concerned, the same is squarely covered by the judgments rendered in Uma Dutt Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1268 as well as Paras Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to count the period of ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 10.9.1981 to 31.3.1994 for the purpose of increments alone. The needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 05, 2010. (sck).