CWP(T) No. 7292/2008 31.08.2010 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “i) That the final seniority list of Lecturers issued on 7.8.1997 vide Annexure A-23 and the subsequent seniority list issued by the respondent No.2 in December 1999 may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii) That the respondents may be directed to place the applicants in the new seniority list, by determining the seniority of the applicants who are tenure Lecturers at the end as on 31.3.1994 and above the Lecturers appointed in April, 1994 or in the year 1995 or 1996 forthwith, as per the notifications dated 3.11.1995 and 25.11.1995 vide Annexures A-21 and A-22 forthwith; iii) That without prejudice to relief(s) (i) & (ii) above, the respondents may be directed to reframe the seniority list of Lecturers from the date of their initial appointment (on tenure basis) as per the settled law forthwith; iv) That the respondents may be directed to give the benefit of the running scales and increments to the applicants since their initial tenure appointments till regularization on 31.3.1994 & thereafter till today for the purpose of pay- fixation forthwith; v) That the respondents may be directed to give the benefit of running grade/increments towards tenure service till regularization and thereafter till today for the purpose of pay- fixation as has been given to the adhoc School Lecturers appointed alongwith the applicants and then regularized forthwith; vi) That the respondents may be directed to give the benefit of arrears to the applicants, accruing to them due to pay fixation w.e.f. their initial appointments (on tenure basis) till regularization on 31.3.1994 and then from 1.4.1994 till today alongwith interest @18% per annum forthwith; vii) That the executive orders dated 12.6.1991 (A-24) or any other similar orders which denies the benefit of running grade/ increments to the tenure appointees may kindly be declared illegal & ultra-vires the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; viii) That the policy of the respondents State in giving the benefit of running grade/ increments and the benefit of adhoc service period towards increments on regularization to adhoc Doctors and other categories and in denying the same to the tenure appointees i.e. the applicants merely on the basis of nature/ nomenclature/designation of appointment may kindly be quashed and set aside; ix) That any other relief(s) deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case may also be granted. x) That the cost of the application may also be granted.” 2. Qua reliefs No. (i), (ii) & (iii) learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to file a comprehensive and detailed fresh petition by impleading appropriate parties. Permission granted. 3. Petitioners are restricting their prayer qua reliefs (iv), (v) & (vi). 4. There is no dispute that initially petitioners were appointed on different dates as Lecturers on tenure basis. This is evident from Annexures A-1 & A-2. There is also no dispute that their services were regularized w.e.f. 31.3.1994 in terms of order dated 25.11.1995 (Annexure A-22). 5. This Court in CWP(T) No. 2599/2008 titled as Uma Dut Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., (a copy of which has been placed on record) has held as under:- “The respondent-State had been using the expression ad hoc/tenure interchangeably. A bare perusal of Annexure A-5 dated 13.1.2004 reveals that the State Government was also seized of the matter whether the financial benefits to the teachers appointed on tenure basis were to be granted at par with the ad hoc Teachers or not. Annexure A-5 makes an interesting reading. The Additional Secretary has expressed that tenure post has a definite meaning and the appointment on tenure basis is to be made for a specific period. However, according to him the appointments made against tenure posts have continued for unlimited period and the services of those tenure teachers who had completed three years of continuous service on or before 31.3.1994 were ordered to be regularized by the State Government. In the present case also, the petitioner has been appointed on tenure basis, but no period was specified in the appointment letter except that services were liable to be terminated on the joining of regular hand. He has worked continuously for four years. Since he has worked for fairly long period, 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 intents and purposes. Moreover, there is no difference in the duties discharged by the Teachers appointed on ad hoc basis or tenure basis. The difference is only in the nomenclature. The State Government had also been using the expression “ad hoc”, “tenure” and “contract” loosely. It has decided as per Annexures A-5 and A-6 annexed with M.A. No.3725/2006 to regularize the services on ad hoc/tenure/contract teachers who have completed three years service on or before 31.3.1994. The State has not maintained any distinction between ad hoc and tenure appointees at the time of regularization. The petitioner has also been regularized in the year 1995 with effect from 1.4.1994. He had worked continuously and there is no interruption from 1990 till the date of his regularization. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period with effect from 21.4.1990 to 4.12.1995 for the purpose of increments. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner necessary increments after counting this period within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs.” 6. The facts of the present case are similar and as such petitioners are also entitled to the benefits as stand accorded to the petitioner in Uma Dutt (supra). 7. Respondents are thus directed to count the period of service rendered by the petitioners on tenure basis till the date of their regularization for the purpose of according pay fixation by way of increments. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, thereafter petitioners shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the sum found due and payable to them. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 31, 2010 (rana)