Contractual service must be counted for both annual increments and pensionary benefits, as established by previous judgments and legal principles regarding equal treatment of similarly situated employees.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against judgment dated 25.09.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3414 of 2020, titled as Basant Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, to a limited extent whereby claim of the petitioners, on regularization, for grant of annualincrement for services rendered by them on contractual basis has been rejected by referring judgment passed by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi, SLP (c) No.10399 of 2020, with observation that in para-9 of the said SLP, the Supreme Court has categorically held that it is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account.

2. Another limb of impugned judgment granting benefits to the petitioners-appellants of their contractual service for pensionary benefits by directing to treat the same as qualified service for the purpose of pension has not been assailed either by the appellants or by the respondent-State.

3. In CWP No.850 of 2010, titled as Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 19.10.2010, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (H) 887, it was held that ad hoc service followed by regular service in the same post could be counted for the purpose of increments.

4. Approving the aforesaid judgment in Paras Ram’s case, a Division Bench of this High Court in LPA No.36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 15.07.2010, had observed that appellant in Sita Ram’s case was entitled for counting of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension, but he was not entitled for counting the said ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority.

5. It is also apt to record that judgments in Paras Ram’s and Sita Ram’s cases have attained finality.

6. In CWP No.4550 of 2010, titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 16.12.2010 alongwith connected matters, in case of tenure appointees, direction was given to grant annual increment during period of tenure services and to count the said period for the purpose of pension like ad hoc appointees in the Education Department. However, issue related to contract Teachers was kept open to be decided by the Authority.

7. In CWP No.5400 of 2014, titled as Veena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another, decided on 21.11.2014, contract service followed by regular appointment without interruption was directed to be considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

8. Special Leave to Appeal CC No(s) 18898 of 2015 titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another vs. Veena Devi, preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.10.2015

9. A Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No.8953 of 2013, titled as Joga Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.06.2015, had held that services rendered by the petitioners therein, who were appointed Vidya Upasaks on honorarium basis which was followed by regular appointment as Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs), were entitled for counting of their service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments.

10. After dismissal of SLP(C) No.183 of 2016, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Joga Singh and others, Review Petition (Civil) No.274 of 2017 filed in the said SLP (C) No.183 of 2016, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.03.2017.

11. In similar case CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 26.12.2019, after taking into consideration Rule 17 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS Pension Rules), and other pronouncements of this High Court as well as Supreme Court, Division Bench of this Court had directed to count period of contract service followed by regular service as qualifying service for granting pension.

12. CWP No.2411 of 2019