AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner has two grievances; (i) The ad hoc period of service as Junior Basis Teacher and Language Teacher is not counted for the purpose of pension and increments; (ii) the ad hoc service followed by regular appointment in the post of Shastri is not counted for the purpose of increments and pension. As far as the first grievance is concerned, it is now a settled law that such approved service, though on ad hoc basis is liable to be counted as qualifying service, for the purpose of pension and not for increments.
Therefore, there will be a direction to the second Respondent/competent authority to count the ad hoc service of the Petitioner as Junior Basis Teacher and Language Teacher for the purpose of pension only. As far as the ad hoc service followed by regular appointment in the post of Shastri is concerned, the same shall be counted for the purpose of both pension and increments in view of the decision of this Court LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram v. State H.P. and Ors., decided on 15.7.2010.
In case, any benefits otherwise due to the Petitioner on account of re-fixation of the pay has not been disbursed, the same shall be disbursed to him within a period of two months. The needful in the matter of re-fixation of pension 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 by the Petitioner before the second Respondent/competent authority.
The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.