IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14527 of 2008. Decided on: 11.7.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Udho Dass Sharma …Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. J.P. Upadhaya, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para No. 7 (i) & (ii):- “7 (i). That the applicant may please be declared entitled to the benefit of nine months temporary service rendered during 3/59 to 12/59 as teacher in Govt. Middle School, Chari, Tehsil Shahpur, Distt. Kangra for the purpose of retiral benefits such as pension etc. which became admissible to him w.e.f. 1.9.1992 on his retirement from service as Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Daroh, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra on the analogy of one Sh. B.D. Sharma, retired as such, from Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Garh-Jamula, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra as already submitted supra and the respondents may please be directed to do the needful and to enhance the pension accordingly within a period of three months. (ii). That the respondents may please be directed to pay all the arrears accrued w.e.f. 1.9.1992 in favour of the applicant in consequence to relief (i) above with interest @ 12% p.a. on the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 arrears becoming due till final payment of the same.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 3:- “3. That the present original application filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal is not maintainable as the applicant has mentioned the period of nine months of temporary service w.e.f. 30.3.1959 to December, 1959. It is submitted that the applicant has rendered service in the respondent department w.e.f. 30.3.1959 to 29.6.1959, 1.7.1959 to 13.7.1959 and 15.9.1959 to 9.12.1959. The total period of temporary service counts to 6 months and 9 days only. The interruption of period of temporary service cannot be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral benefits such as pension etc. It is further submitted that Chapter III Rule 13 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 regarding qualifying service expresses as under:- “Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Govt. Servant shall commence from the date he takes the charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity, provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post .” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 15.7.2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram versus State of H.P. & others, text whereof is as under:- 3 Petitioner is the appellant. The petitioner approached this court seeking the benefit of ad hoc service, rendered by him, prior to his regular service. Learned Single Judge granted the benefit of increment and permitted other service benefits , except the seniority. Learned Single Judge followed the judgment of this court in Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P. and another Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 in granting the relief, as above. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the petitioner having been recruited through the same recruitment process, he is entitled to have seniority also in respect of the period of ad hoc service. We are afraid that contention cannot be appreciated. It is not in dispute that initial recruitment was only for ad hoc service. However, this court in Paras Ram’s case had laid down the law that if ad hoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments. It is also settled principle of law that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. To that extent the appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also. However, so far as the seniority is concerned, the basic norms of seniority will be counted on the date of appointment in regular service, qua those who are already in regular service as on that date. If the claim of the petitioner-appellant is to be accepted, it will unsettle the settled seniority of those regular teachers. It may also not be out of context to note that none of the affected teachers is before us. Be that, as it may. Since the petitioner-appellant under law is entitled only for counting the ad hoc service, followed by regular 4 service for the purpose of increments and pension, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed subject to the above modification that the period that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. The appeal is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove in LPA No. 36 of 2010 and he is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent No.1, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be payable. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 11, 2011. (cr)