IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 15367 of 2008 Decided on: July 28, 2011 Madhu Asha ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was appointed as Nursery Teacher on adhoc basis in the year 1984, vide Annexure A-1. She was reappointed again on adhoc basis, on the expiry of the period of earlier adhoc appointment, vide Annexure A-2, which is dated 16.1.1986. In the year 1997, vide Notification, copy Annexure A-3, posts of Nursery Teachers were converted into those of JBTs. Services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2001, vide order, copy Annexure A-5, we.f. 13.1.1997. However, there is a clause in the said order that no financial benefit of service rendered by her as Nursery Teacher was to be given to her Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É as her appointment was by way of stop-gap arrangement. Petitioner is aggrieved by this clause in Annexure A-5. 2. Respondents’ plea is that petitioner was engaged only by way of stop gap arrangement as Nursery Teacher and since the cadre of Nursery Teachers was a dying cadre, petitioner or any other holder of the post of Nursery Teacher cannot claim financial benefit for the services rendered on adhoc basis. 3. Plea raised by the respondents, in their reply, cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of this Court in Uma Dutt Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1268, in which relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Sain and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2000) 8 SCC 25, it has been held that adhoc, contract or tenure service followed by regularization of such service, entitles the person concerned to benefit of seniority and increments. 4. Consequently, petition is allowed and conditions No.1 and 2 appearing in Annexure A-5, the order by which the petitioner was regularized as JBT, are struck down. Disposed of. July 28, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.