CWP(T) No. 6754/2008 (OA 2304/2000) 22.04.2010 Present: Mr.Yudhvir Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. According to Mr R. K. Sharma, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General the matter in issue is squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19.5.2009 in CWP(T) No. 7712/2008, titled as Paras Ram versus State of H.P. and another. Copy of the said decision is placed on record. He further submits that the facts in question are similar and the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under: “In the present case the petitioner has uninterruptedly worked against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis and has been awarded special certificate. He was regularized on 13.11.1997. In view of Annexure PB, the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization are to be counted towards annual increments. The petitioner has served the respondent-State as Junior Basic Trained Teacher from 1987. He is entitled to get the entire services counted which has rendered on ad hoc basis with effect from 1987 for the purpose of annual increments. The petitioner has worked as Junior Basic Trained Teacher for all intents and purposes and has been issued a certificate by the State as per notification dated 31.8.1995. There is no distinction visualized/contemplated in Annexure PB to which category the benefit of ad hoc services is to be granted for the purpose of annual increments. This notification will cover all the cases where the persons had worked on ad hoc basis and immediately thereafter they were regularized without any -2- break in the Education Department. The services which the petitioner and similarly situate persons have rendered on ad hoc basis for along period; cannot be permitted to be rendered otiose. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization on 13.11.1997 for the purpose of annual increments. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made by the parties the petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall also be entitled to same benefits as granted to the similarly situated persons. The respondent authorities are directed to take necessary action within a period of four months from today. In view of the aforesaid observations the present petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 22, 2010 (PK)