Purshottam Dutt. vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner has two grievances; (i) counting of ad hoc J.B.T. service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension; and (ii) counting of the ad hoc service followed by regular service on post of Shashtri for the purpose of pension and increments.

As far as the first issue is concerned, the period of service as J.B.T. on ad hoc basis shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, but not for increments, as held by this Court in the judgment rendered in CWP No. 1140 of 2011, dated 29.7.2011, titled Lekh Raj and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. As far as the second grievance is concerned, the period of ad hoc service followed by regular service will be counted for the purpose of increments and pension as held by this Court in the judgments rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram v. State of H.P., dated 15.7.2010 and CWP No. 4550 of 2010, Ravi Kumar State of H.P and Anr. dated 16.12.2010. The needful action in the light of above declarations shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the Petitioner before the second Respondent, alongwith a copy each of the judgments referred to above and a copy of the petition by the Petitioner. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.