IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8208/2010 a/w CWP Nos. 8550, 8551, 8552, 8554, 8556, 8557 and 8561 Decided on: 29.12.2010 1. CWP No. 8208 of 2010 Mohan Krishan Versus State of H.P. and anr. 2. CWP No. 8550 of 2010 Chander Kanta Sharma Versus State of H.P. and anr. 3. CWP No. 8551 of 2010 Prem Lal Sharma Versus State of H.P. and anr. 4. CWP No. 8552 of 2010 Khem Raj Sharma Versus State of H.P. and anr. 5. CWP No. 8554 of 2010 Ghanshyam Sharma Versus State of H.P. and anr. 6. CWP No. 8556 of 2010 Bhoop Ram Versus State of H.P. and anr. 7. CWP No. 8557 of 2010 Leela Dutt Sharma Versus State of H.P. and anr. 8. CWP No. 8561 of 2010 Surjeet Kumar & ors. Versus State of H.P. and anr. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge For the petitioners: M/s. Prem P. Chauhan, Ramakant Sharma, Shashi Shirshoo, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G with Mr. Ankus Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): According to the petitioners, their case is covered by the decision of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled Sita Ram versus State of H.P. and ors., dated 15.7.2010, relevant text of which reads as follows:- 2 “ Petitioner is the appellant. The petitioner approached this court seeking the benefit of adhoc 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 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.” 3 2. The petitioner (s) may file individual representation before the second respondent within a period of one month from today, in which case, the matter will be duly examined and in case, the petitioners are duly covered by the judgment as above, the petitioners, herein, shall also be disbursed the benefits as extended to those in the judgment as extracted above, within another four months, from the date of presentation of the representation. 3. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma), December 29, 2010 Judge (VT/pankaj)