Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Kurian Joseph & Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Dheeraj Kapoor ….Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ….Respondents.
CWP No. 7818 of 2010
Decided on: February 21, 2011.
For the petitioner:Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G.
Contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service for increment and pension.
Headnote:
Contract Service - Benefit of Contract Service for Increment, Pension, and Vacation Salary - Court held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service for increment and pension, but directed release of vacation salary based on previous court decision
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed the benefit of contract service for increment, pension, and vacation salary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service for increment and pension, but directed the release of vacation salary to the petitioner based on a previous court decision.
Issues: Benefit of contract service for increment, pension, and vacation salary.
Ratio Decidendi: Contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service for increment and pension. Vacation salary to be released based on previous court decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, directing the release of vacation salary to the petitioner and allowing the petitioner to approach the first respondent for other grievances.
Kurian Joseph, C.J.
The petitioner claims the benefit of contract service for the purpose of increment, pension and vacation salary. As far as the increment and pension is concerned, this Court has already held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service and it is for the government to consider the matter. As far as the vacation salary is concerned, the matter is now convered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh versus State of H.P. & Others. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to release the vacation salary to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted to him so far. As far as the other grievances are concerned, it will be open to him to approach the first respondent.
2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.
