CWPOA No.5101 of 2020 Date of Decision: September 6,P 2023 Dr.Kuldeep Sharma .…Petitioner.

Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & another ..Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Cthander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?, [IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA] Yes For the Petitioner: Mr.Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr.A.K.

Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

Petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Doctor on contract basis in the year 1999 and his services were regularized on 25.11.2008 without interruption and petitioner has retired Hfrom the services on 31.03.2015.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to grant him pension and other retiral benefits by counting entire service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

3. Earlier petitioner had filed O.A. No.3415 of 2017, titled as Veena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another, seeking the same relief, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of by the

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

Tribunal, in terms of judgment dated 21.11.2014 passed in CWP No.5400 of 2014, titled as Veena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another, and also 14.09.2010 passed in CWP-T No.6785 of 2008, titled as Narend.er Singh Naik vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

4. Claim of the petitioner was re jected by the Principal Secretary (Ayurveda) by passing common order dated 18.06.2018 in numerous similar cases. The case was rejected on the ground that the same was not similar to Veena Devi’s case and was not covered under the said judgment and Narender Singh Naik’s case, and further that claim of Narender Singh Naik was also rejected by the concerned Department and, therefore, petitioner was not entitled for benefit of pension as claimed.

5. Present petition has been filed assailing aforesaid order dated 18.06.2018.

6. Issue involved in present petition is no longer res integra and stands settled by various judgments of this High Court as well as Supreme Court

7. 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 f.or the purpose of annual increments. The petitioner has worked as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher for all intents and purposes and has been issued a certificate by the State as per notification dated 31.08.1995. There is no distinction visualized/contemplated in Annexure PB to which category the benefit of ad hofc services is to be granted for the purpose of annoual increments. This notification will cover all the cases where the persons had worked on ad hoc basis and immediately thereafter they were regularized without any break in the Education Department. The services which the petitioner had similarly situate persons have rendered on ad hoc basis foro a long period; cannot be permitted to be rendered otiose.”

8. On the basis of aforesaid pronouncement, one Sita Ram was granted same benefit but without benefit of seniority and he had approached the Division Bench, by filing LPA No.36 of 2010, which was decided on 15.07.2010 denying him benefit of iseniority on the basis of ad hoc service, but declaring him entitled for counting of ad hoc services foll