IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 11684 of 2011-I Date of Decision 28th December, 2011 ________________________________________________________ Milkhi Ram Sharma son of Shri Mangat Ram resident of Village Patti, P. O. Jakhara, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H. P. ….Petitioner. Versus. 1. State Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002. 2. Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla- 171003. 3. Deputy Accountant General, Audit and Accounts, H. P., Shimla. ….Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. _______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J. K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ankush Dass, Sood, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “1. Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the Annexure P-3 to the extent where by the service rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis has not been counted. 2. Writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to 2 grant the benefit of pay fixation and counting of the service for pension w.e.f. 3rd, Jan, 1986 to 31.3.1994, the due date in favour of the petitioner as has been allowed to similarly placed in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No.-36/2010 titled as Sita Ram Vs. State of H. P. along with consequential benefits.” 2. In case adhoc service is followed by regular service for the same post, it is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension and increments, in view of the decision of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State of H. P. 3. There will be a direction to 2nd respondent to issue necessary clarification in this regard to 3rd respondent so as to enable 3rd respondent to take further action in the matter accordingly. Annexure P-3 stands quashed. 2nd respondent is further directed to take steps within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment and 3rd respondent shall take further action in the matter within another period of one month. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. December 28, 2011 (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), (R/Jai) Judge