IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWPOA No. 6956 of 2020 Decided on: 07.12.2023 ________________________________________________________ Rama Nand Sharma ………... Petitioner Versus H State of HP & Ors . …Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Abheyndra Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2.

Mr. Lokinder Paul Thakur, Central C Government Counsel, for respondent No. 3.

________________________________________________________

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge ( oral)

Petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Doctor on contract basis on 30.03.1999 and his services were regularized without interruption and petitioner had retired from the service on 30.09.2014.

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. 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.

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

4. In Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, it was held by the Court as under:- P “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 sfervices rendered by the petitioner before his regularization are to be counted towards annual increments. The petitioner has served the respondent-State tas Junior Basic rained Teacher from 1987. He is erntitled to get the entire services counted which haus rendered on ad hoc basis with effect from 1987 for the purpose of annual increments. The petitioner has worked as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher for all Cintents 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 hoc services is to be granted for the purpose of annual 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 for a long period; cannot be permitted to be rendered otiose.”

5. 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 seniority on the basis of ad hoc service, but declaring him entitled for counting of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of increment and pension.

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, direction was given to grant annual increment and count ad hoc services for the purpose of pension in case of tenure appointees 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, contruact 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 Sup