JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Petitioner was given the benefit of two increments vide office order dated 24th April, 1997 (Annexure A-2). However, the same has been withdrawn on the basis of Annexure A-1, dated 27th December, 2005. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 24th April, 1997. Petitioner has neither mis-represented nor concealed any facts at the time when the benefit of two increments was given to him vide order dated 24th April, 1997 (Annexure A-2). 2. The question whether the persons appointed on adhoc basis have to be given the benefit of adhoc service towards increments, is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court on 19.05.2009 in Paras Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008. The Court is of the considered view that the services rendered by the petitioner have rightly been taken into consideration as per office order dated 24th April, 1997. Since the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of office order dated 27th December, 2005 (Annexure A-1), he has suffered civil and evil consequences. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 27th December, 2005 is quashed and set aside. No costs.