IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 278/2018 Decided on : 18.11.2024 Municipal Corporation, Shimla & anr. …..Petitioners Versus Meera Sharma & anr. ….Respondents Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1No.

For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. D. K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Mr. Govind Korla, Addl. A.Gs. and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy.A.G., for respondent No.2.

____________________________________________________________________

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (oral) This writ petition at the behest of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, is directed against the judgment passed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6449/2016, whereby it allowed the O.A. filed by respondent No.1 herein, by directing the petitioners herein, to count the services rendered by respondent No.1 on contract basis w.e.f. 05.02.2000 till her regularization towards pension and other retiral benefits. 2. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was appointed as a Clerk on contract basis on 05.02.2000 in the Municipal Corporation and

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

had been continuously working as such till the regularization of her services vide letter dated 05.12.2008, however, services rendered by her w.e.f. 05.02.2000 on contract basis had not been counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary and other consequential benefits.

3. The petitioners had failed to produce any contract policy before the Tribunal leaving no other option to the Tribunal but to allow the petition filed by respondent No.1.

4. Be that as it may, the issue in question is no longer res integra in view of the catena of judgments rendered by this court.

5. In a division bench judgment authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan) in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi versus State of H.P. and others dated 26.12.2019, this court after taking into consideration the law on this subject directed the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner therein on contract basis prior to his regularization to be treated as qualifying service for grant of pension.

6. This judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 10399/2020 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh &

anr. versus Sheela Devi, decided on 07th August, 2023.

7. Similar issue thereafter came up for consideration before a coordinate bench of this court in batch of petitions, lead being CWPOA No. 5187/2020 titled as Sunil Dutt & ors. versus State of H.P. & ors.

decided on 29th August, 2023 wherein it was observed as under:-

“4. Petitioners have approached this Court, seeking direction to the respondents to extend benefit of period of their services rendered by them on contract basis prior to their regularization, but from the date of initial appointment, for annual increments and counting for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

5. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra, but stands settled in various pronouncements of this High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

6. In Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, it was held by the Court as under:-

“4. In the present case petitioner has uninterruptedly worked against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis and has been awarded special certificate. He was regularized on 13.11.1997. In view of Annexure PB, the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization are to be counted towards annual increments. The petitioner has served the respondent State as Junior Basic rained Teacher from 1987. He is entitled to get the entire services counted which has rendered on ad hoc basis with effect from 1987 for the purpose of annual increments. The petitioner has wo