IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7712/2008 Decided on:19.5.2009 Paras Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner has passed diploma of Drawing Teacher. He was appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the year 1987. The State Government has taken a conscious decision on 31.8.1995 to regularize those C&V Teacher, who have put in ten years of service as Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the Education Department. These teachers were to be issued special Junior Basic Trained Teacher’s certificates. In sequel to instructions dated 31.8.1995, the petitioner was regularized in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2130 on 13.11.1997. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 Mr. R.K. Guatam, Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the respondents have not counted the services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT) towards the annual increments. He has strongly relied upon Annexure - PB dated 27.9.1977. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner belongs to C&V Teacher category and was appointed against the category of Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis, the services rendered by him on ad hoc basis cannot be counted towards the annual increments. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties. The petitioner though belongs to C&V category was appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT). He worked continuously for ten years against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT). He was granted special certificate on the basis of instructions dated 31.8.1995. He was regularized on 13.11.1997. It will be apt at this stage to take note of letter dated 27.9.1977, which reads thus: “I am directed to refer to your letter No. EDN-H(2) B (2) 6/88-III dated the 12th September, 1977, on the above subject and to say that where there is a break in Ad-Hoc service and regular appointment, the period of Ad-Hoc service will not count towards increment, but where the Ad-Hoc appointment in following by immediately regular appointment and there is no break in service, the Ad- Hoc service will be counted towards increment in the normal course.” The contents of Annexure ‘PB’ reveals that ad hoc appointment if it is followed by immediate regular appointment and there is no break in 3 service, the ad hoc services will be counted towards the increment in the normal course. 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 a 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 break in the Education Department. The services which the petitioner and similarly situate persons have rendered on ad hoc basis for a long 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. 19.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*