IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.3846/2008 Decided on:14.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Association of Lecturers. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Asstt. Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). It is jointly represented by the learned counsel for the parties that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment dated 27.10.2009 rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No.4357/2008, titled as Thakuri Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters. The Court has held as under: 8. It is thus, clear that there is virtually no difference between ad hoc and tenure appointment. Mr. R.M. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General urged that the tenure appointment was made only against leave vacancy and therefore, this cannot be considered similar to the ad hoc appointment. I am not at all impressed with this argument. The fact remains that right from their initial appointment on tenure basis between 1986 to 1988 till their regularization on 20th October, 1995, the petitioners worked uninterruptedly as Physical Education Teachers without break. This shows that there were jobs available. 9. Reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court in Paras Ram vs. State of J.P. and another, CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008, decided on 19.5.2009, wherein in the case of an ad hoc employee this court has directed that the ad hoc period of service be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increments.” Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to take into consideration the uninterrupted tenure services rendered by the members of the petitioner’s Association prior to their regularization for the purpose of calculation of grant of annual increments. The arrears due and payable to the members of the petitioner’s Association be paid to them within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date the amounts fall due till payment thereof. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.7.2010 *awasthi*