IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3398/2008(OA 1026/1996) Date of Decision: 22.04.2009. Ranbir Singh Pathania & Ors. Versus State of H.P. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate, vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addiitional Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioners were appointed as teachers (Trained Graduate Teacher) in the education department in September, 1979. Initially they were appointed on adhoc basis, but, lateron without any break, they were regularized as such between the years, 1982-1985. The petitioners’ initial appointment, undisputedly, was in compliance of the selection process adopted by the State for selecting and appointing T.G.T. teachers on regular basis. The petitioners’ appointment on adhoc basis and subsequent regularization is totally in accordance and compliance of the rules. The petitioners have filed the present petition praying that their adhoc services be counted towards Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? : 2 : seniority and consequential benefits and more particularly, for the grant of proficiency step up and selection grade. In the affidavit dated 31.3.2009, the respondents have simply stated as under: “…..2. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in September, 1979 as Trained Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis and was regularized vide order dated 17.8.1985. 3. That as per the instructions issued by the Finance Department vide letter No.Fin (PR)B(&)-1/98 dated 10.8.1999 and 12.1.2004 (copies annexed as Annexure R-1 and R-II) that officials initially appointed on adhoc basis are not eligible for placement scale/Assured Career Progression Scheme. Thus, the petitioners are not eligible for any relief sought”. The stand taken by the respondents is evidently contrary in as much as from order dated 20th January, 1995 (Annexure A-7), it is evident that similarly situated persons whose appointments were initially made on adhoc basis, were lateron accorded benefits of proficiency step up after counting their service from the date of their initial adhoc appointment. The respondents in their earlier affidavit dated 6th April, 1998, have also stated as under: “Adhoc services, however, is counted only towards Annual increment(s) provided adhoc service is continue without break and regular appointment is followed by it.” The Apex Court in Union of India & Ors Vs. Ansusekhar Guin & Ors. {1989 (1) SCC 285} has held as under: “The Tribunal examined the matter at considerable length and came to hold that it would be ‘equitable dispensation of justice to fix the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees on the basis of length of continuous service followed by regular appointment to that : 3 : grade. Where a part of such continuous service in the grade followed by regular appointment was of adhoc or temporary nature and even in excess of the quota fixed, that period of service would also count for seniority subject, however, to the only condition that service would be (sic) that the appointment has been made on the basis of a regularly constituted selecting body and was not fortuitous nor out of turn.’ 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that in the facts and circumstances appearing in the case the guideline indicated by the Tribunal is fully justified. We may now proceed on the footing that there were no rules in force prior to 1972 and we see no justification to accept the stand taken before us to the contrary. Counting continuous length of service for fixation of seniority is a well accepted rule when the service rule does not prescribe a mode of fixing inter se seniority. The test adopted by the Tribunal appears to be just and we do not propose to interfere.” (Emphasis supplied) For the aforesaid reasons, the petition needs to be allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall consider the services rendered by the petitioners on adhoc basis for the grant of seniority and other consequential benefits. The respondents shall take action positively on or before 31st July, 2009. The petition is disposed of in terms of above orders. (Sanjay Karol) Judge. April 22, 2009. Bhupender