IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8136 of 2008. Reserved on: 30.6.2009. Decided on: 14.7.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Uma Nand … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of J.B.T. from 17.11.1980 to 5.1.1981. He was appointed as Shastri on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 5.1.1981 to July, 1981. He was again appointed against the post of J.B.T. on ad hoc basis from 5.9.1981 to 17.12.1981. Thereafter, he worked against the post of Shastri on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 18.12.1981 to 2.7.1984 in spell of 90 days. He was appointed against the post of J.B.T. on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 6.9.1984 to 31.1.1985. Thereafter, he worked as Shastri on ad hoc basis against leave vacancy at Government Middle School, Rajal with effect from 4.2.1985 to 3.5.1985. He was engaged as Language Teacher on ad hoc basis in Government Middle School, Ropri with effect from 7.5.1985 to 20.9.1985. He was finally appointed as Shastri on ad hoc basis by the District Education Officer, Kangra vide letter dated 16.9.1985 with effect from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 21.9.1985 to 8.6.1989. He was appointment on regular basis as Shastri vide letter dated 31.5.1989. Mr. Onkar Jairath has strenuously argued that the entire ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 1980 should be counted against the post of Shastri. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has worked in different spells as J.B.T./Language Teacher and Shastri, he could be given only the benefit towards pay fixation for the period he has worked as Shastri on ad hoc basis immediately before his date of regular appointment. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner had worked intermittently against the post of J.B.T./Shastri or Language Teacher in different spells. He has only worked as Shastri continuously with effect from 21.9.1985 to 8.6.1989 on ad hoc basis. This period has been counted by the respondent-State for the purpose of pay fixation only. Mr. Onkar Jairath has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in C.W.P. (T) No. 7712 of 2008 decided on 19.5.2009 whereby ad hoc service followed by regular appointment has been counted for the purpose of increment. The judgment has been rendered by this Court on the basis of instructions issued by the State Government on 27.9.1977. Mr. Onkar Jairath further argued that the entire period the petitioner has worked as J.B.T./Language Teacher/Shastri on ad hoc basis should be counted for the purpose of increment. 3 The petitioner, as noticed above, has worked against the post of J.B.T./Language Teacher/Shastri in different spells. He has only worked continuously against the post of Shastri with effect from 21.9.1985 to 8.6.1989 on ad hoc basis. He was immediately regularized with effect from 9.6.1989 pursuant to the interview held on 17.6.1988. The period rendered by the petitioner as Shastri with effect from 16.9.1985 to 8.6.1989 on ad hoc basis is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of increment on the basis of instructions issued by the State Government on 27.9.1977. The period he has worked intermittently against the post of J.B.T. on ad hoc basis followed by his appointment as Shastri on ad hoc basis and thereafter, as Language Teacher before 21.9.1985 cannot be counted for the purpose of increment. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to give the petitioner benefit of service rendered by him on ad hoc basis against the post of Shastri immediately before his regularization for the purpose of increment. It is made clear by abundant precaution that the petitioner shall be entitled only to the benefit for the period he has worked on ad hoc basis as Shastri with effect from 21.9.1985 to 8.6.1989. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 14, 2009. (cr)