Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2011 (HP)

Ramesh Chand v. State of H. P.

2011-04-04

KULDIP SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the relief of counting adhoc service of petitioner from 3.2.1986 to 4.3. 1995 for purposes of annual increments and pay fixation. It has been stated that the petitioner was engaged as Instructor at ITI Shahpur on 24.10.1985 for 89 days. The petitioner continued to serve ITI Shahpur but he was given fictional breaks after 89 days. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sheet Metal Instructor in ITI Shahpur on adhoc basis on the basis of recommendation made by the duly constituted selection committee headed by the Director of Technical Education and petitioner joined as such on 3.2.1986. The petitioner was regularised on 4.3.1995. The petitioner has claimed increments for the period he served the department on adhoc basis from 3.2.1986 to 4.3.1995 and also prayed for fixation of his pay accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 16284 of 2008 Amar Singh vs. State of H.P. & anr. The judgment dated 19.5.2009 in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008 Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. has been noticed in the judgment dated 15.12.2010. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that Secretary (E.E.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 10/15.3.2011 has informed the Director, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, H.P. Sundernagar that the judgment passed by the High Court in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008 in Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. & another has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP filed by the State Government in the Apex Court vide order dated 5.4.2010. As such, all the similarly situated officials including the petitioner who have uninterrupted adhoc service followed by regular service are entitled to counting of adhoc service before regularisation for the purpose of annual increments. 4. The letter dated 10/15.3.2011 has also been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the petition and the same is taken on record. In judgment dated 15.12.2010 after noticing judgment dated 19.5.2009 in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008 Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. & another, Uma Dutt Sharma vs. State of H.P.& anr. 2010(1) Shim. L.C. 172, Ms. Thakuri Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors. In judgment dated 15.12.2010 after noticing judgment dated 19.5.2009 in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008 Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. & another, Uma Dutt Sharma vs. State of H.P.& anr. 2010(1) Shim. L.C. 172, Ms. Thakuri Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 549, this court has held as follows:- “10. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for counting of his ad hoc service from 1.6.1985 to 1.4.1994 for annual increments and for pay fixation. The respondents in their reply have stated that petitioner has worked from 1.6.1985 to 5.11.1986 without break. He was engaged as PET on tenure basis and he worked as such w.e.f. 6.11.1986 to 31.3.1994. The service render by petitioner before 6.11.1986 was on ad hoc basis against the post of JBT. The case of the petitioner is that he was regularized on 1.4.1994, this stand of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondents. Thus petitioner has rendered service from 1.6.1985 to 31.3.1994 either on ad hoc basis or tenure basis, but it makes no difference for counting this service for the purpose of increments in view of three judgements, noticed above. The respondents are under obligation to count the ad hoc / tenure service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.1985 to 1.4.1994 for the purposes of annual increments and re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and give him arrears. x x x 12. The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the ad hoc/ tenure service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.1985 to 1.4.1994 for the purposes of annual increments, re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and pay arrears to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest to petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum on such arrears till payment.” 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in view of letter dated 2.6.2004 Annexure R-1 the petitioner is not entitled to count adhoc service for the purpose of increments. The point involved in the present case is similar to the point which was involved in Amar Singh (supra). The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in view of letter dated 2.6.2004 Annexure R-1 the petitioner is not entitled to count adhoc service for the purpose of increments. The point involved in the present case is similar to the point which was involved in Amar Singh (supra). The submission made by learned Additional Advocate General is noticed only to be rejected in view of the judgment rendered in Amar Singh (supra). The State has already taken the decision in view of letter dated 10/15.3.2011 for implementing the judgment in Paras Ram (supra) after the dismissal of SLP filed by the State by the Apex Court in Paras Ram case on 5.4.2010. 6. No other point has been urged. 7. The result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to count the adhoc services of the petitioner from 3.2.1986 to 4.3.1995 for the purposes of increments and fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority.