1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 7 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.05.2008 ____________________________________________________________ Baba Balak Nath Temple and others. Appellants. -vs- Ramesh Kumar Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : None. _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. Respondent Ramesh Kumar was appointed as Lecturer by the appellant vide order dated 24-11-1997 on temporary basis. He was not granted annual increment. He made representations which did not find favour with the present appellant. He was informed that his initial appointment w.e.f. 24-11-1997 was by way of stop-gap arrangement and that the aforesaid appointment was regularized subsequently, with effect from 21-2-1999 and hence, the service rendered by him prior to 21- 2-1999 did not qualify for grant of increment. Respondent then filed writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to grant increment on completion of one year service from the date of his initial appointment, i.e, 24-11-1997. Appellant opposed the aforesaid prayer made in the writ petition and took the stand that the initial appointment of the respondent Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 was against a leave vacancy as one Shri Satish Kumar who was earlier appointed as Lecturer, had proceeded on extra- ordinary leave. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and granted the prayer made in the petition. Appellants have challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. Appointment letter whereby the respondent was initially appointed with effect from 24-11-1997 which is Annexure-P1 on the record of learned Single Judge, no where mentions that the appointment of the respondent was against leave vacancy or by way of stop-gap arrangement. The appointment is termed as temporary appointment. A temporary appointment against a cadre post is as good as appointment on regular or even permanent employment and service rendered against temporary appointment qualifies for grant of increment. In view of the above said position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is therefore, dismissed. CMP No. 59 of 2008. Infructuous. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. May 22, 2008. (bm) 3 4