IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11187 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 19, 2010 Kewal Krishan Sharma Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner restricts the claim of the petitioner for benefit of counting of past service for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits/increments only w.e.f. 20.10.1993 the date when the petitioner joined on the post of Shastri on tenure basis. The petitioner has been working as a Shastri w.e.f. 25.10.1986. 2. This Court in Uma Dutt Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1268 has held that the terms ad hoc, contract and tenure have been used interchangeably by the respondent/State while according benefits to its employees. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner already stands regularised. The respondent/State has opposed the petitioner’s prayer for counting ad hoc/tenure service up to the date of regularisation of Shastri on the ground that his initial appointment was on tenure basis as JBT/Shastri/LT. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 1874 of 2008, titled as Kali Dass versus State of H.P. & ors., decided on 12.3.2010 has also passed the following order:- “The petitioner has challenged the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner’s salary. While in adhoc service, the petitioner underwent the sterilization operation on 21.1.1983 and he was given benefit of increment when he joined the regular service on 25.3.1985. According to the respondent, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of sterilization operation, since at the relevant time, he was only on adhoc service. But, it is to be seen that the petitioner has since been regularized in service and whether in adhoc or regular service, fact remains that, probably on account of the incentive, the petitioner has undergone the sterilization operation. All that apart, it is seen that the incentive given in the year 1983 is sought to be recovered only after 25 years. We do not find any justification for such steps taken after a long delay of 25 years. To permit so would certainly be unjust and unreasonable. We do not hence find any justification in the impugned action, the same is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed, as above. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 3 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision the prayer made by the petitioner needs to be allowed. Service period w.e.f. 20.10.1993 till the date of his regularization as Shastri shall be considered for the purpose of granting all monetary benefits. The respondents are directed to take consequential action within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 6. The respondents are also seeking to withdraw the benefit under the special increment family planning scheme already accorded to the petitioner. Regardless of the status of the employee the family planning programme is required to be implemented with vigour. All employees are to be entitled to the special increment family planning. Action of the respondents in withdrawing the same is illegal and has to be struck down. Consequently it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of one special increment for family planning with effect from the due date. 7. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 19, 2010 (PK)