IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.Review No. 109 of 2010 Decided on: 1st June, 2011. Chhanga Ram. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others . Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CMP(M) No. 1047 of 2010. Heard. The delay in filing the review petition is condoned. The application is disposed of. C.Review No. 109 of 2010. 2. This is a petition seeking review of the judgment dated 24.6.2010 in CWP No. 3784 of 2009. According to the petitioner, he had raised two grievances; one regarding counting of the ad hoc service for the purpose of increments and pension and the other regarding the sterilization allowance, which was originally granted but denied as per Annexure P-7. The matter was heard along with a few of 2 other cases and in the common judgment the issue regarding the counting of ad hoc service for the purpose of increments and pension alone was considered. The petitioner’s grievance regarding Annexure P-7 was not addressed in the common judgment. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, we do not think it necessary to recall the judgment for that purpose since that issue also is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 26.7.2010 in CWP No.1161 of 2010, wherein it has been made clear that the employees who are in ad hoc service are entitled to sterilization allowance since the ad hoc service is followed by continuous service. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is clarified that Annexure P-7 shall not be enforced in the case of the petitioner and he shall be entitled to sterilization allowance since his ad hoc service has been followed by continuous service for all purposes. 4. With these observations, the review petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice June 1, 2011. (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr) Judge. 3