IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1606 of 2011. Decided on: 16th May, 2011. Jai Pal ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and ors. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved since his ad hoc service followed by regular appointment in the same post and in the same scale is not counted for service benefits. Similar issue was examined by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 626 of 1986, titled Miss Manorma Vaidya versus State of H. P. and others. The Tribunal directed to regularize all those applicants from the dates the applicants have been working on ad hoc basis without any break. Those applicants are Dr. Lekh Ram Gupta and Ms. Manorama. It is admitted in the reply that order of the Tribunal has been implemented. However, the prayer of the petitioner is said to be distinguished on the ground that the petitioner was appointed only for a period of six months, whereas Ms. Manorama and Dr. Lekh Ram have been continuing on temporary basis from 1977 and regularization came from 1983. But the fact remains that both the set of doctors have been appointed on ad hoc basis. In the case of the petitioner, regularization was followed immediately, 2 whereas in the case of Ms. Manorama Vaidya and Dr. Lekh Ram, the regularization took some time, apparently in view of the time taken for corresponding between the Government and Public Service Commission but on principle both set of doctors stands on the same footing, the ad hoc service followed by regular appointment without break in the same post and in the same scale, as we have seen from the record and the reply. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner herein also, which is followed by without break and regularize him on the same post, for all purposes including increment and pension. 2. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 16th May, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol ), (C/jai) Judge.