IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4948 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.8.2010. Swaran Lata Sharma ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and anr.. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- (i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondents to give all benefit of `Tenure’ period to the petitioner for counting of his seniority as well as increments for the fixation of pay since his appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears thereof for the period w.e.f. 3.3.1987 to 1.4.1994. 2. This court in LPA No. 36 of 2010 decided on 15.7.2010 has considered a similar issue, the text of judgement reads as follows:- “Petitioner is the appellant. The petitioner approached this court seeking the benefit of ad hoc service, rendered by him, prior to his regular service. Learned Single Judge granted the benefit of increment and permitted other service 2 benefits , except the seniority. Learned Single Judge followed the judgment of this court in Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P. and another Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 in granting the relief, as above. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant, the petitioner having been recruited through the same recruitment process, he is entitled to have seniority also in respect of the period of ad hoc service. We are afraid that contention cannot be appreciated. It is not in dispute that initial recruitment was only for ad hoc service. However, this court in Paras Ram’s case had laid down the law that if ad hoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments. It is also settled principle of law that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. To that extent the appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also. However, so far as the seniority is concerned, the basic norms of seniority will be counted on the date of appointment in regular service, qua those who are already in regular service as on that date. If the claim of the petitioner-appellant is to be accepted, it will unsettle the settled seniority of those regular teachers. It may also not be out of context to note that none of the affected teachers is before us. Be that, as it may. Since the petitioner-appellant under law is entitled only for counting the ad hoc service, followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed subject to the above modification that the period that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. 3. The appeal is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy “ 3 3. In view of the judgement extracted above, needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgement by the petitioner. 4. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of so also the pending application, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 23, 2010. (Justice Kuldip Singh), (Hem) Judge.