JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “i) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to count the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 3.9.1985 and 1.6.1982, respectively, till the issuance of regularization order, for the purpose of annual increment and all consequential benefits of pay fixation etc. be released in favour of the petitioners.” 2. 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 Vs. State of H.P. and another Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 in granting the relief, as above. 2. 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