IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No.8722, 8723, 8724, 8725, 8726, 8728, 8730, 8735 of 2010 Decided on: January 5, 2011. 1. CWP No.8722 of 2010 Ram Chand and others Versus State of H.P. and others. 2. CWP No.8723 of 2010 Dhyan Chand and others Versus State of H.P. and others. 3. CWP No.8724 of 2010 Ramesh Chand and others Versus State of H.P. and others. 4. CWP No.8725 of 2010 Ravinder Kumar and others Versus State of H.P. and others. 5. CWP No.8726 of 2010 Rajinder Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others. 6. CWP No.8728 of 2010 Naresh Singh Rana and others Versus State of H.P. and others. 7. CWP No.8730 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar and others Versus State of H.P. and others 8. CWP No.8735 of 2010 Multan Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petitions are filed with identical prayers. One set of prayers is extracted below: “(i) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to count the ad hoc period of service rendered by the Petitioners for fixation of pay by allowing them all the increments from the date of their initial appointment as per the law settled by this Hon’ble Court in CWP(T) NO.7712 of 2008 decided on 19/05/2009 and the period may also be 2 counted toward the pensionary benefits as decided in LPA No.36/2010 titled as Sita Ram versus State of H.P. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant the benefits of adhoc services to the Petitioners for the purpose of fixation of their seniority.” 2. We have considered this issue in our judgment in LPA No. 36 of 2010. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “ Petitioner is the appellant. The petitioner approached this court seeking the benefit of adhoc service, rendered by him, prior to his regular service. Learned Single Judge granted the benefit of increment and permitted other service 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 3 the period that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also.” 3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to examine the matter(s) of the petitioner(s) and in case the petitioner(s) are duly covered by the judgment referred to above, they shall also be disbursed the benefits as extended to those in the judgment as extracted above, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner(s). 4. With these directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. January 5, 2011. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/pankaj) Judge.