IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP-T No. 2164 of 2008. Date of Decision: 17.8.2010 Vidya Verma …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Ms.Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The petitioner by means of this petition has prayed for the grant of following amongst other reliefs: “1.That the impugned Annexure A-2, dated 10.7.2000 may be quashed and set aside. 2.That the respondents may be directed to re-do and re-draw the seniority list of TGTs issued on 1st March, 1997 and respondents may further be directed to assign due seniority to the applicant w.e.f. 1979 or w.e.f. 1985 batch taking into consideration her past services, which she has rendered on ad hoc basis without break w.e.f. 1st June, 1985. 3.That the respondents may be directed to grant the applicant all the consequential benefits like seniority, back wages, promotions etc. w.e.f. 1st August, 1979 or in the alternative w.e.f. 1st June, 1985 and to pay arrears alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.” The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as TGT in the year 1979 and w.e.f. 1st June, 1985 has been working 2 without break on ad hoc basis. She submits that this period of service should be counted for reckoning her seniority, wages etc. The reply of the State is evasive and all that is stated is that the petitioner has rightly been assigned her seniority. As far as claim of seniority is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief since persons over whom she wants seniority have not been made party and I have been informed that the petitioner has already retired and this relief in a way has become infructuous. Therefore, the sole question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of fixing her pay after regularization by giving her notional benefit of increment and after regularization giving the actual benefit of pay. Ms.Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a letter dated 27th September, 1977, issued by the Director of Education, relevant portion of which reads just follows:- “I am directed to refer your letter NO.EDN-H(2)B (2)6/00-III dated the 12th September, 1977 on the above cited subject and to say that there is a break in ad hoc service and regular appointment, the period of ad hoc service will not count towards increment, but if the ad hoc appointment is followed by immediate regular appointment and there is no break in service the ad hoc service will be counted towards increment in the normal course.” A perusal of this letter clearly shows that if the ad hoc appointment is followed by regular appointment and there is no break 3 of service, the ad hoc services will be counted towards the grant of annual increments. 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. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that the period of service rendered by the petitioner after 1st June, 1985 shall be taken into consideration while calculating her pay etc. at the time of regularization. The arrear due and payable to the petitioner be paid to her on or before 31.12.2010, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date the amount fell due till payment thereof. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. August 17, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.