IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3226 of 2009. Date of decision: 27.08.2011 ___________________________________________________ Naresh Dutt Sharma …. Petitioner. Versus The State of HP & Another .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Language Teacher on 9.7.1984 and worked as such till 24.9.1985. Thereafter he was appointed as Shastri against the same post on ad hoc basis and worked as such from 25.9.1985 to 31.3.1994. 2. The petitioner claims that the benefit of the service rendered by him on ad hoc basis should be counted for the purpose of grant of annual ___________ Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. increments. It is also claimed that the respondents should be restrained from fixing his pay in the pay scale less than Rs.1650-2925 which he was receiving at the time of his regularization. 3. As far as the first aspect of the matter is concerned, in CWP (T) No.5442 of 2008 decided on 11.8.2010 titled Sh. Ram Chand and others Vs. State of H.P and another, this Court after considering all the circulars and the earlier judgments delivered by the other Benches of this Court had come to the conclusion that the uninterrupted service rendered by the ad hoc teachers must be counted for the purpose of calculation of grant of annual increments. 4. As far as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, the same is clearly covered by a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in CWP(T) No.5759 of 2008 decided on 5.7.2010 titled Subhash Chand and another Vs. State of H.P and others wherein the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the State reducing the scales of similarly situated persons. The learned Single Judge held that this aspect is contrary to the rules and could not have been done. 5. In view of the above judgments, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to take into consideration the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of calculating his increments and he shall be granted benefit of such service for the purpose of calculating the increments. Furthermore, the respondents are restrained from reducing the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs.1650-2925 and shall keep his pay fixed in the aforesaid pay scale and in the corresponding scale after revision of pay scales as has been directed in Subhash Chand’s case supra. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 27, 2011. (Krn Guleria)