Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 396 (HP)

MEHAR CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2006-12-18

M.R.VERMA

body2006
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, Chairman.—The applicant herein has claimed the relief of directing the respondents to count the past service rendered by the applicant as TGT (Arts) w.e.f. December 2, 1983 to March 31, 1994 for the purpose of benefit of increments and other consequential benefits including counting of such service towards qualifying service for pension purposes. 2. The sum and substance of the case of the applicant as made out in the original application is that he was .appointed as TGT (Arts) on December 2, 1983 for 90 days on ad hoc basis. Thereafter he continued to serve as such with a few fictional breaks in between. However, since August 18, 1988 till March 31, 1994 he continued to serve on ad hoc basis without any break and his services were regularized w.e.f. April 1, 1994. It is further case of the applicant that since his ad hoc appointment was followed by regular appointment, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of ad hoc service as claimed in the original application and also on the ground that similarly situate persons as the applicant is had been given the benefit of counting of ad hoc service by the respondents/this Tribunal. 3. The respondents filed reply contesting the claim of the applicant on the grounds that ad hoc appointment of the applicant was not continuous but there were different breaks and the claim is now time barred, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed. 4. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and denying the defence of the respondents. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 6. It has not been disputed at the time of arguments that Annexure-A/4 is the order passed by a Division Bench of this Tribunal giving the benefit of counting of ad hoc service of Sneh Lata in O.A-(M) 357/1999). The relevant part of the said order reads as under:— "In the reply filed by the respondent State it is stated that after verification from the record of the applicant it was found that there is break w.e.f. 3.7.1983 to 24.10.1983 and w.e.f. 27.4.1984 to 28.2.1985. Hence this period cannot, be counted/treated as continuous period. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:— "In the reply filed by the respondent State it is stated that after verification from the record of the applicant it was found that there is break w.e.f. 3.7.1983 to 24.10.1983 and w.e.f. 27.4.1984 to 28.2.1985. Hence this period cannot, be counted/treated as continuous period. So far the period w.e.f. 26.6.1985 to 17.12.1986 and 1.9.1988 to 4.9.1988 is concerned this period will be counted for the benefit because of the fact that as per the orders of government w.e.f. June, 1985 no break was to be given. The petitioner will be given the benefits w.e.f. 26.6.1985 as decided by the Government. In view of this the respondents are directed that this period be counted for giving notional benefits of pay fixation..." 7. It may also be pointed out here that in the reply Annexure-A/ 5 filed by the respondents in the aforesaid O.A-(M) 357/1999 it is admitted by the respondents that ad hoc service of said Sneh Lata after June 1985 despite break had to be counted for the purpose of benefits as per the clarification given in this regard by the State government. 8. In view of above there is no reason as to why the period of ad hoc service rendered by the applicant w.e.f. June 1, 1985 till the date of his regular appointment be not ordered to be counted for giving notional benefits of pay fixation to the applicant as was done in OA-(M) 357/ 1999 aforesaid. 9. In so far as the question of limitation is concerned, the case in fact concerns the pay fixation after giving benefit of ad hoc service and pay fixation is a continuing cause of action, hence the claim cannot be said to be time barred. 10. As a result it is ordered that the period of ad hoc service of the applicant w.e.f. June 1, 1985 till the date of his regular appointment be counted for giving notional benefits of pay fixation to him. The respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of three months from the date of this order. This original application is disposed of in terms of the above orders. O.A. disposed of. -