IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 16517 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 11 , 2011 Jai Chand Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, vice Mr. Haminder Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy, Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents-State. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to count the ad-hoc service tenure for the purpose of increment, seniority, promotion(s) and grant of pay scales revised from time to time w.e.f. 11.3.1984 onward till 31.3.1994.” 2. Petitioner restricts his relief qua the entitlement of increments and counting of ad hoc service for the purpose of pension. 3. It is joint case of the parties that some of the issues stand covered by a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, titled as Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. & another alongwith other connected matters, wherein following directions were issued:- Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “(1) The tenure appointees in the education department if appointed without break in regular service shall be granted increments during the tenure period and the said service will count for pension, as in the case of ad hoc appointees in the education department. (2) As far as contract teachers are concerned, the 1st respondent may consider their case for increments or for counting the service as qualifying service for pension, having regard to all relevant factors, some of which are referred to above. It will be open to the petitioners to jointly also file appropriate representations. Orders in that regard will be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment/representations.” 4. As such petitioner being similarly situated is entitled to the relief which already stands granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Kumar (supra). Consequential action shall positively be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Monetary benefits, due and admissible, if any, be released within the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum and the same shall be recovered from the erring officials. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 11 , 2011 (PK)