IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 11562 of 2008 Decided on : 22.3.2011 Ranjeet Kumari …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The prayer made in the petition is mainly to the following effect:- (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the uninterrupted adhoc service, rendered by the applicant, for the purpose of seniority w.e.f. 1.6.1985 alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.8.1982 as Lecturer in Economics purely on adhoc basis against vacant post of Lecturer for a period of 90 days or till the joining of regular hand whichever is earlier. The petitioner joined her duties in Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Nurpur on 14.10.1982. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there were some breaks in the service of the petitioner before 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?yes 2 1.6.1985 but after 1.6.1985 the petitioner served the respondents- Department on adhoc basis continuously without any breaks. The petitioner through Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was appointed as Lecturer (school cadre) in Economics vide office order dated 29.7.1993 and was posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Nurpur where the petitioner had earlier worked on adhoc basis. 3. The respondent No.2 vide office order dated 1.11.1994 in pursuance of instructions contained in letter dated 27.9.1977 of Deputy Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. granted the benefit of counting of the adhoc service followed by regular appointment without any break of petitioner from 1.6.1985 to 11.8.1993 for the purpose of annual increments. It has been stated that whole of the period of adhoc service without break rendered by the petitioner has been taken into account for the purpose of fixation of pay and annual increments. The petition has been filed for counting the adhoc period of the petitioner from 1.6.1985 to 12.8.1993 for the purpose of seniority. 4. The respondents have filed reply and contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated that adhoc service w.e.f. 1.6.1985 to 11.8.1993 of the petitioner cannot be counted for purposes of seniority. The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on 14.10.1982 and continued her services with one day break on completion of 90 days. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of seniority for the period she served on adhoc basis. The petitioner was given regular appointment on 12.8.1993 and has been given seniority from the date of her regular appointment. 3 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has not shown any rule/regulation/instruction under which the petitioner is entitled to count the period of adhoc service for the purpose of seniority also. The period of adhoc service of the petitioner has been counted for increments, pay fixation under instructions of the Government, but no such instruction of the Government has been shown by the petitioner for counting adhoc service of the petitioner for the purpose of seniority also. There is no merit in the petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), March 22, 2010. Judge. (GR)