Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1196 (HP)

Shakuntla Kumari Bhardwaj v. State of H. P.

2011-03-10

KULDIP SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner in the petition has mainly prayed the following reliefs:- (i) That the respondents may be directed to give to the applicant the benefits of annual increments for the period she worked on ad hoc basis i.e. from 16.3.1985 to 1.4.1994. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to give to the applicant the arrears of salary due and admissible to her. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to pay interest on the arrears of salary @ 18% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially given adhoc appointment as Craft Teacher vide office order dated 15.2.1985 and she joined as such on 16.3.1985. She was regularised on 8.11.1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1994 as Craft Teacher. She has not been given benefit of adhoc service for the purpose of increments from 16.3.1985 to 1.4.1994 while fixing her pay in the scale of ` 15002700, revised to ` 5000-8100. The petitioner on 3.10.2006 submitted representation to Deputy Director Education, Nahan for the grant of increments with effect from the date of her adhoc appointment. The representation of the petitioner was not considered and, therefore, the petitioner was forced to accept her fixation of pay without additional increments for the period she had worked on adhoc basis. The petitioner has also alleged that on the basis of length of service put by her coupled with the instructions issued by the Government introducing ‘Assured Carrier Progression Scheme’ for regular employees of the Government, she is entitled for grant of proficiency step up increments on completion of 8 years, 16 years and 24 years continuous and uninterrupted service. 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 have contested the petition by filing joint reply. It has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled for the monetary benefits as she is Art & Craft Teacher. She was initially offered a purely temporary appointment against short term/leave vacancy as Craft Teacher on adhoc basis in 1985. The monetary benefits are available to those adhoc appointees who have continuously worked on adhoc basis against their own post and subsequently regularised as such. The petitioner does not fall in that category. The proficiency step up under Assured Carrier Progression Scheme is available to those teachers who have completed 8/16/24/32 years of regular service which is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis. The petitioner does not fall in that category. The proficiency step up under Assured Carrier Progression Scheme is available to those teachers who have completed 8/16/24/32 years of regular service which is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis. It has not been denied that the petitioner had joined as Craft Teacher on adhoc basis on 16.3.1985. The regularisation of the petitioner as Craft Teacher in the pay scale of ` 1500-2700 w.e.f. 1.4.1994 has been admitted. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner for granting increments for adhoc period as claimed by her, is covered by the judgment dated 15.7.2010 passed in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors. The respondents have not denied that the petitioner was initially appointed as Craft Teacher on adhoc basis and she joined as such on 16.3.1985. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioner was regularised as Craft Teacher w.e.f. 1.4.1994. The respondents have however, denied the increments to the petitioner on the ground that since she was appointed on adhoc basis, therefore, she is not entitled to increments for the period 16.3.1985 to 1.4.1994. In Sita Ram (supra) it has been held as follows:- “It is not in dispute that initial recruitment was only for adhoc service. However, this court in Paras Ram’s case had laid down the law that if adhoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments.” 5. The present case gets support from Sita Ram (supra) so far claim of the petitioner regarding grant of increments for adhoc service is concerned. The stand of the respondents is arbitrary that monetary benefits are available to those adhoc appointees who have continuously worked on adhoc basis against their own post and subsequently regularised as such and not appointees like petitioner who were appointed against short term/leave vacancy on adhoc basis. The appointees like petitioner cannot be discriminated. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to increments for the period 16.3.1985 to 1.4.1994 during which she rendered adhoc service. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The appointees like petitioner cannot be discriminated. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to increments for the period 16.3.1985 to 1.4.1994 during which she rendered adhoc service. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner from 16.3.1985 to 1.4.1994 for the purposes of annual increments and pay the arrears to the petitioner in four months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on such arrears till payment. The petition stands disposed of on above terms.