IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3744/08 (OA 1224/96) Date of Decision : April 09, 2009 Smt. Nimesh Kumari Sharma Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was posted as Language Teacher in Government High School, Kotla, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. She was appointed on 15.11.1980 and thereafter she continued to work on adhoc basis at various schools in the State. She was finally given regular appointment on 28.5.1986. The respondent gave fictional breaks in service to deprive the adhoc teachers the benefits of leave, seniority, pay fixation and other consequential benefits. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Aggrieved by the respondents’ action the petitioner filed a petition before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal being OA No. 2166/94 titled Nimesh Kumari Sharma versus State of H.P. and vide orders dated 18.9.1994 the respondent/State was directed to consider her representation and decide the same. In terms of the impugned order dated 30.4.1995 (Annexure A-1) the State decided the same and held that her adhoc service on or after 1.6.1985 and up to May 1986 alone would be counted for the purpose of awarding annual increment and other connected benefits even if there were casual or fictional breaks during the said period. Importantly in the reply the fact that the respondents used to give fictional breaks is not specifically denied. The breaks in the service referred to by the respondents is obviously due to the policy adopted by the State of giving fictional breaks. That this practice of giving fictional breaks appears to have been adopted by the State is evident from the impugned order itself. The petitioner served the State w.e.f. 15.11.1980 till her regularisation. The Apex Court in Rattan Lal and others versus State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 43, deprecated the practice of subjecting the teachers employed by the State of Haryana on adhoc basis and subjecting them to unreasonable and arbitrary policy of hire and fire. The Court held that as long as the teachers who were employed on adhoc basis held their office they would be 3 paid salary and allowances even for the period for which fictional breaks had been given by the respondent/State. The Court held the teachers to be entitled to leave and other benefits as stipulated under the Rules. In the impugned order the respondents have not explained as to why the benefit of adhoc service from the period 1981 up to 1985 was not granted while deciding the representation. For the aforesaid reasons the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits in accordance with law and the respondents shall count the period of adhoc service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 15.11.1980 up to 1.6.1985 for the said purpose. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 09, 2009 (PK)