IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 3882, 3883, 3884, 3885, 3887, 3888 and 3889 of 2010. Decided on: 9th July, 2010. For title, please see below. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. CWP No. 3882 of 2010. Uttam Ram. vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. CWP No. 3883 of 2010. Tara Chand. vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. CWP No. 3884 of 2010. Beli Ram. vs. State of H.P. & others. 4. CWP No. 3885 of 2010. Inder Chand. vs. State of H.P. & others. 5. CWP No. 3887 of 2010. Satya Pal Chauhan. vs. State of H.P. & others. 6. CWP No. 3888 of 2010. Krishan Lal. vs. State of H.P. & others. 7. CWP No. 3889 of 2010. Ramesh Chand. vs. State of H.P. & others. 2 The petitioners claim that they may be granted the benefit of ad hoc service. All of them have been appointed in regular service. Their claim is for counting the service rendered on ad hoc basis prior to the regular service. They have placed reliance on the decision dated 19th May, 2009 in Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, rendered in CWP (T) No.7712 of 2008 and the decisions in Uma Dutt vs. State of H.P. in CWP (T) No. 2599 of 2008 dated 7.7.2009 and in Thakuri Devi vs. State of H.P. in CWP (T) 4357 of 2008 dated 27.10.2009. 2. According to the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, the ratio in the decision of Paras Ram may not apply in some of these cases since incumbents are regularized while serving on ad hoc basis. They have ad hoc service as JBT prior to the regular service but they have other service as well in between. These are all matters for the respondents to consider with respect to the facts of each case and in the light of the above decisions. Therefore, we dispose of these writ petitions as follows: 3. In case the representations filed by the petitioners are pending before the second respondent, the same shall be considered with reference to the facts of each case and appropriate action in accordance with law and justice, adverting to the submissions made by the petitioners shall be taken within a period of three months. If any of the petitioners has not filed the representation, it will be open to him to do so within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with 3 copies of the judgments, referred to above in this judgment before the second respondent. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 9th July, 2010 (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr) Judge.