IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. Nos. 5659 & 5660 of 2010 Decided on: 16th September, 2010 1. CWP No. 5659 of 2010 Chander Kiran Versus State of H.P. and another 2. CWP No. 5660 of 2010 Ram Gopal Sharma Versus State of H.P. and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 5659 of 2010 Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 5560 of 2010. For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Vema, Dy. A.G. __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners have filed these writ petitions with the following prayers:- CWP No. 5659 of 2010 “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner towards increment and also for pension. CWP No. 5660 of 2010 That the petitioner may be held entitled to count the period of ad hoc service from 16.3.1990 to 21.3.2000 towards seniority, payment of annual increment and pay fixation, etc. The respondents may be directed to give the petitioner the arrears of salary alongwith interest due and admissible to him after giving him the benefit of ad hoc service towards seniority and pay fixation etc.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the matters are squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court on 15th July, 2010 in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others. The text of the judgment reads as under:- “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 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. There will be a direction to the respondents to grant the same benefit to the petitioners herein also, as was granted to the petitioners in the case referred to above, in case the petitioners herein are also similarly situated. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Rajiv Sharma ), September 16, 2010(K) Judge