IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5442 of 2008. Date of Decision: 11.8.2010 Sh.Ram Chand and others …Petitioners. Versus. State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The undisputed facts of the case are that all the petitioners were working with the State of Himachal Pradesh on tenure basis. A decision was taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to regularize the services of all such tenure teachers who have completed 3 years of continuous service on tenure basis. However, the services rendered on tenure basis were not taken into consideration for fixing the pay. It is not disputed that in case of ad hoc employee this service was taken into consideration. Therefore, the sole question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of fixing their pay 2 after regularization by giving them notional benefit of increment and after regularization giving the actual benefit of pay. The stand of the State in its reply is only that the representations of the petitioners were forwarded to the Government and the Government took a decision that the request of the tenure teachers that they be granted increments by taking into consideration the services rendered on tenure basis had been rejected. Other than this, no ground has been given as to why these representations were being rejected. Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a letter dated 27th September, 1977, issued by the Director of Education, relevant portion of which reads just follows:- “I am directed to refer your letter NO.EDN-H(2)B (2)6/00-III dated the 12th September, 1977 on the above cited subject and to say that there is a break in ad hoc service and regular appointment, the period of ad hoc service will not count towards increment, but if 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 the normal course.” A perusal of this letter clearly shows that if the ad hoc appointment is followed by regular appointment and there is no break of service, the ad hoc services will be counted towards the grant of annual increments. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 9th February, 1978 sent by Director of Education, wherein the terms 3 tenure and ad hoc appointment have both been used by side by side. Relevant portion of this letter reads thus:- “With reference to this Directorate Memo No. 8- 3/73-H (Estt. Branch) dated March, 1977 it is stated that in the matter of calculation of tenure/ad hoc period of service for the purpose of grant of annual towards increment this clarification is being given to you and to the offices under your that this period shall normally be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increment only where there is no break in between regular and tenure/ad hoc appointment and in those case where there is break in between regular and tenure/ad hoc appointment the ad hoc/tenure period shall not be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increment. In future only those such cases of teachers may be sent for grant of annual increment keeping in view the clarification received from the Govt.” This also clearly shows that both the tenure and ad hoc appointment are being treated similarly by the State Government. It decided to take into consideration the uninterrupted ad hoc/tenure period of service followed by regular appointment for the grant of annual increment. Reference may also be made in this regard to a letter dated 20th December, 1989 sent by the Director of Education, in which the terms ad hoc and tenure services have been used alternatively to each other, relevant portion of which reads as below:- “The benefit of ad hoc/tenure services without break and followed by regular appointment can count towards increments and such cases may be sent to this directorate for necessary action.” It is thus clear that the Government was not making difference between ad hoc and tenure appointment. Both were being treated identically. Even otherwise, as per the instructions laid down 4 in the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, ad hoc service has been defined as follows:- “Any appointment which is made without following the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules or the prescribed procedure is to be termed as “adhoc appointment”. It is thus, clear that there is virtually no difference between ad hoc and tenure appointment. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General urged that the tenure appointment was made only against leave vacancy and therefore, this cannot be considered similar to the ad hoc appointment. I am not at all impressed with this argument. The fact remains that right from their initial appointment on tenure basis between 1987 to 1990 till their regularization, the petitioners worked uninterruptedly as Lecturers without break. This shows that there were jobs available. Reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court in Paras Ram vs. State of J.P. and another, CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008, decided on 19.5.2009, wherein in the case of an ad hoc employee this court has directed that the ad hoc period of service be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increments. Keeping in view the letters of the Director of Education, referred to above and the judgment of this Court in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008, I feel that the writ petitions must be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to take into consideration the un-interrupted tenure services rendered by the 5 petitioners prior to their regularization for the purpose of calculation of grant of annual increments. The arrear due and payable to the petitioners be paid to them within three months from today, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date the amounts fall due till payment thereof. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. August 11, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.