IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6001 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.09.2010 Amar Nath & others …Petitiones. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners, by means of this petition, have prayed for grant of a number of reliefs including seniority. However, during the pendency of the petition, all the petitioners have retired and one of them, petitioner No. 1, has expired. 2. Mr. Paul fairly submits that now, the only claim which survives is that the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners from the date of appointment in the year 1967 till the regularization in the year 1970 be taken into consideration for purposes of working out their pension and other retiral benefits. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 3. This Court in CWP (T) No. 5442 of 2008, titled Ram Chand & others versus State of H.P. & another held as under: “Therefore, the sole question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of fixing their pay after regularization by giving them notional benefit of increment and after regularization giving the actual benefit of pay. The stand of the State in its reply is only that the representations of the petitioners were forwarded to the Government and the Government took a decision that the request of the tenure teachers that they be granted increments by taking into consideration the services rendered on tenure basis had been rejected. Other than this, no ground has been given as to why these representations were being rejected. Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a letter dated 27th September, 1977, issued by the Director of Education, relevant portion of which reads just follows:- “I am directed to refer your letter NO.EDN- H(2)B (2)6/00-III dated the 12th September, 1977 on the above cited subject and to say that there is a break in ad hoc service and regular appointment, the period of ad hoc service will not count towards increment, but if the ad hoc appointment is followed by immediate regular appointment and there is no break in service the ad hoc service will be counted towards increment in the normal course.” A perusal of this letter clearly shows that if the ad hoc appointment is followed by regular appointment and there is no break of service, the ad hoc services will be counted towards the grant of annual increments. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 9th February, 1978 sent by Director of Education, wherein the terms tenure and ad hoc appointment have both been used by side by side. Relevant portion of this letter reads thus:- “With reference to this Directorate Memo No. 8-3/73-H (Estt. Branch) dated March, 1977 it is stated that in the matter of calculation of tenure/ad hoc period of service for the purpose of grant of annual towards increment this clarification is being given to you and to the offices under your that this period shall normally be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increment only where there is no 3 break in between regular and tenure/ad hoc appointment and in those case where there is break in between regular and tenure/ad hoc appointment the ad hoc/tenure period shall not be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increment. In future only those such cases of teachers may be sent for grant of annual increment keeping in view the clarification received from the Govt.” This also clearly shows that both the tenure and ad hoc appointment are being treated similarly by the State Government. It decided to take into consideration the uninterrupted ad hoc/tenure period of service followed by regular appointment for the grant of annual increment. Reference may also be made in this regard to a letter dated 20th December, 1989 sent by the Director of Education, in which the terms ad hoc and tenure services have been used alternatively to each other, relevant portion of which reads as below:- “The benefit of ad hoc/tenure services without break and followed by regular appointment can count towards increments and such cases may be sent to this directorate for necessary action.” It is thus clear that the Government was not making difference between ad hoc and tenure appointment. Both were being treated identically. Even otherwise, as per the instructions laid down in the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, ad hoc service has been defined as follows:- “Any appointment which is made without following the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules or the prescribed procedure is to be termed as “adhoc appointment”. It is thus, clear that there is virtually no difference between ad hoc and tenure appointment. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General urged that the tenure appointment was made only against leave vacancy and therefore, this cannot be considered similar to the ad hoc appointment. I am not at all impressed with this argument. The fact remains that right from their initial appointment on tenure basis between 1987 to 1990 till their regularization, the petitioners worked uninterruptedly as Lecturers without break. This shows that there were jobs available. Reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court in Paras Ram vs. State of J.P. and another, CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008, decided on 19.5.2009, wherein in the case of 4 an ad hoc employee this court has directed that the ad hoc period of service be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increments.” 4. It may be pointed out that the decision in Paras Ram’s case supra has been up held by the Apex Court. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with the directions that the service rendered by the petitioners shall be counted for grant of increment and working out the pay, which should have been payable to them at the time of retirement. The petitioners / their legal representatives shall not be entitled to any arrears on account of re-fixation of pay, since they have retired / died. However, while working out their pension, their last pay will be worked out by counting their ad hoc service and granting them annual increment till the date of retirement. Arrears on account of pension and other retiral benefits, if any, shall be worked out and paid to the petitioners / their legal representatives on or before 30th April, 2011 alongwith interest @ 6 per cent per annum, failing which the petitioners / their legal representatives shall be entitled000000 to the interest @ 12 per cent per annum. In future, the pension shall be paid after counting ad hoc service. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 20, 2010 (rajni)