Mast Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner has two grievances, (i) counting of period rendered as J.B.T. for the purpose of increments and pension and (ii) counting of period of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pension. As far as the first grievance is concerned, it has already been held by this Court that the J.B.T. period will only be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension only, in terms of Rule 13 of the Pension Rules. As far as the second grievance is concerned, in case the ad hoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service shall be counted for the purpose of increments and pension, in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled 2 as Sita Ram v. State H.P. and Ors., decided on 15.7.2010. The needful, in the light of what is stated above, shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the Petitioner before the second Respondent/competent authority.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.