Ravinder Kumar vs State of H.P. and Ors

Kurian Joseph, C.J.

CMP (M) No. 920 of 2010

Heard. The delay in filing the petition is condoned and application is disposed of.

C. Rev. No. 106 of 2010

This is a petition to review the judgment dated 27.7.2009 in CWP(T) No. 1082 of 2008. The writ petition was dismissed. The issue essentially pertains to counting of ad hoc service. That issue is covered in favour of the Petitioner by the decision of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met in case the decision dismissing the writ petition on the g round of delay is reviewed. Ordered accordingly. The review petition is allowed.

CWP (T) No. 1082 of 2008

We have considered this issue in our judgment in LPA No. 36 of 2010. The text of the judgment reads as follows:

Petitioner is the Appellant. The Petitioner approached this Court seeking the benefit of adhoc service, rendered by him, prior to his regular service. Learned Single Judge granted the benefit of increment and permitted other service benefits, except the seniority. Learned Single Judge followed the judgment of this Court in Paras Ram v. State of H.P. and Anr. Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887in granting the relief, as above.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant, the Petitioner having been recruited through the same recruitment process, he is entitled to have seniority also in respect of the period of ad hoc service. We are afraid that contention cannot be appreciated. It is not in dispute that initial recruitment was only for ad hoc service. However, this Court in Paras Ram''s case had laid down the law that if ad hoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments. It is also settled principle of law that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. To that extent the Appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also. However, so far as the seniority is concerned, the basic norms of seniority will be counted on the date of appointment in regular service, qua those who are already in regular service as on that date. If the claim of the Petitioner-Appellant is to be accepted, it will unsettle the settled seniority of those regular teachers. It may also not be out of context to note that none of the affected teachers is before us. Be that, as it may. Since the Petitioner-Appellant under law is entitled only for counting the ad hoc service, followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed subject to the above modification that the period that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also.

The Petitioner may file appropriate representation before the second Respondent within a period of one month from today, in which case, the matter will be duly examined and in case the Petitioner is duly covered by the judgment as above, the Petitioner shall also be disbursed the benefits as extended to those in the judgment as extracted above, within another four months from the date of presentation of the representation.

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