JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. CMP(M) No. 949 of 2023 By way of instant application filed under S.5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants/appellants, for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying appeal, which is barred by 122 days. 2. It is averred in the application that delay in filing the appeal occurred on account of time consumed in seeking legal opinion and processing the case through the Departments/organizations involved in the case. 3. Having taken note of the quantum of delay in filing the appeal coupled with the fact that the delay occurred on account of lengthy administrative process, we are inclined to condone the delay, in the interest of justice. 4. For the reasons stated afore, delay of 122 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. Registry is directed to register the appeal. LPA No. 254 of 2023 Instant Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Lahore, applicable to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, challenge has been laid to order dated 30.12.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in CWPOA No. 7531 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby though a direction came to be issued to the appellants/respondents (hereinafter, ‘appellants’) to grant benefit of bunching of increments earned by the respondents/petitioners (hereinafter, ‘respondents’) during ad-hoc service and fix their pay accordingly, within a period of six weeks, but relief of counting ad-hoc service towards benefit of Assured Career Progressions Scheme (in short, ‘ACPS’) claimed by the respondents was not accepted. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the respondents herein were initially appointed as Junior Basic Trained teachers on ad-hoc basis consequent to their selection made by the duly constituted Selection Committee against substantive posts. Respondents were trained for the post of C&V teachers i.e. Language Teachers and their interviews were also held for the Language Teachers in the pay scale of Rs.570-1080 but while giving appointment, they were appointed as Junior Basic Trained teachers in the lower pay-scale of Rs.480-1080, during the years 1986-89. After completion of ten years of ad-hoc service, respondents were issued Special JBT certificate and they were regularized as Junior Basic Trained teachers. After completion of ten years of ad-hoc service, respondents were issued Special JBT certificate and they were regularized as Junior Basic Trained teachers. Ad-hoc service of the respondents was followed by regularisation, without any interruption in between. Though, with the intervention of judgment passed by this Court, respondents were given benefit of ad-hoc service towards increments and pension, however, raising of the service benefits after counting the ad- hoc services has been denied to them. Respondents claimed that they being similarly situate and carrying similar duties like the persons, who were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis were given benefit of ad-hoc service towards ACPS and ‘bunching’, but for no plausible reason, they have been discriminated. Respondents instituted CWP No. 9368 of 2014, praying therein for counting of their ad-hoc service towards regularisation from initial date of appointment and for the purpose of seniority, promotion, ACP, stagnation, pay scale and bunching. However, vide order dated 29.12.2014, this court directed the appellants to decide the representation submitted by the respondents seeking therein aforesaid reliefs, in a time bound manner. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, relief, as prayed for, was not extended to the respondents, they were compelled to initiate contempt proceedings i.e. contempt petition Nos. 130 of 2015 and 927 of 2015. During the pendency of the aforesaid contempt petitions, appellants rejected the representation of the respondents for grant of bunching benefit and counting of ad-hoc service, vide letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure A-5). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, respondents approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by way OA No. 2550 of 2016, which on account of abolishment of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, came to be transferred to this court and was re-registered as CWPOA No. 7531 of 2019, seeking therein following main relief(s) “i) That the impugned rejection dated 19.10.2015, Annexure A-3, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the applicants may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of their ad-hoc services towards seniority, promotion, ACP, bunching and stagnation scale w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits. ii) That the arrears accrued to the applicants on account of bunching, ACP and stagnation scale after revision of pay, may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest.” 3. ii) That the arrears accrued to the applicants on account of bunching, ACP and stagnation scale after revision of pay, may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest.” 3. Afore prayer made by the respondents, came to be seriously refuted by the appellants, by way of reply filed to the Original Application, on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in LPA No. 30 of 2010, titled Sita Ram v. State of H.P. and others on 15.7.2010, wherein Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, with following observations: “2… Since the petitioner-appellant under law is entitled only for counting the ad-hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed subject to the above modification that the period that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also.” 4. On the strength of aforesaid observation/finding rendered by Division Bench of this Court, appellants, in their reply, submitted that seniority benefit to ad-hoc teachers has been declined, therefore, the case of the respondents to count the services rendered on ad-hoc basis towards regularization from initial date of appointment and for the purpose of seniority, promotion, grant of benefits of ACP/stagnation scale/ bunching etc. is not maintainable. However, in the reply, appellants fairly admitted that ad-hoc period of the respondents has been counted for the purpose of increments and pension on the analogy of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sita Ram supra. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned Single Judge formulated following questions for considerations: “(i) Whether the increments granted to the petitioners for the period of ad-hoc service rendered by them (in terms of decisions rendered in Paras Ram & Sita Ram’s cases (supra), can also be considered for grant of bunching benefits or not? (ii) Whether the ad-hoc service can be considered for grant of Assured Career Progression.” 5. Learned Single Judge, decided the question No.(i) in favour of the respondents and against the appellants, but while deciding question No.(ii), held that the benefit of ACP is allowed to those regular employees, who do not have promotion and are stagnating for a long time on the post held by them. Learned Single Judge, decided the question No.(i) in favour of the respondents and against the appellants, but while deciding question No.(ii), held that the benefit of ACP is allowed to those regular employees, who do not have promotion and are stagnating for a long time on the post held by them. Learned Single Judge, further held that by nature of applicability and the object of ACP, it cannot be granted for the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings returned qua the first question, as detailed herein above, appellants have approached this Court, in the instant appeal, whereas the respondents have not laid challenge to the order, so far findings qua second question are concerned, as such, same have attained finality, as such, the dispute before us is qua the findings rendered by learned Single Judge on the first question. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we find that on completion of ten years of ad-hoc service, services of the respondents were regularized by the appellants, by awarding them Special J.B.T. Certificate and thereafter, subsequently in terms of judgment in Paras Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, LHLJ 2009 (2) 887 and Sita Ram v. State of H.P., LPA No. 36 of 2010, decided on 15.7.2010, benefit of ad-hoc services was also granted to the respondents, for the purpose of release of annual increments. In terms of the judgments rendered in Paras Ram and Sita Ram supra, ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents though was to be counted towards due and admissible pension, but the same could not be counted towards seniority. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Malook Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2021) 12 Scale 159 , held that the initial stop-gap arrangement being in accordance with the Rules and the ad-hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. 9. Precisely, the question which fell for adjudication of learned Single Judge was, whether increments granted to the respondents for the period of ad-hoc service rendered by them can also be considered for grant of bunching benefit or not? 10. 9. Precisely, the question which fell for adjudication of learned Single Judge was, whether increments granted to the respondents for the period of ad-hoc service rendered by them can also be considered for grant of bunching benefit or not? 10. Before exploring answer to the aforesaid question, it would be apt to take note of Rule-7 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1998, which came into force with effect from 1.1.1996, which reads as under: “7. 10. Before exploring answer to the aforesaid question, it would be apt to take note of Rule-7 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1998, which came into force with effect from 1.1.1996, which reads as under: “7. Fixation of Pay in the Revised Scale.- The pay of a Government employee who opts or is deemed to have opted for the revised scale in terms of the provisions of these rules shall, unless in any case the Government by special order otherwise directs, be fixed in the following manner, namely:- (j) an amount representing forty percent of the basic pay in the existing scale shall be added to the “Existing Emoluments” of the employee; and (ii) after the existing emoluments have been so increased, the pay shall thereafter be fixed in the revised scale at the stage next above the amount of the existing emoluments so computed, if it falls between two stages and it the amount so computed is equal to a stage in the revised scale, then the pay shall be fixed at such equal stage; Provided that:- (a) if the minimum of the revised scale is more than the amount so arrived at, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale; (b) If the amount so arrived at is higher than the maximum of the revised scale, the amount in excess of the maximum of the revised scale shall be treated as personal pay which shall be absorbed in future increments and shall be reckoned as pay for all purposes; Provided further that where in the fixation of pay, the pay of Government employees drawing pay at more than three consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of those government employees who are drawing pay beyond the first three consecutive stages in the existing scale shall be stepped up by grant of increment (s) in the revised scale in the following manner, namely :- (a) for the Government employees drawing pay from the fourth upto the sixth stage in the existing scale- by one increment; (b) for the Government employees drawing pay from the seventh upto the ninth stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond the sixth stage- by two increments; (c) For the Government employee drawing pay from the tenth upto the twelfth stage in the existing scale if there is bunching beyond the ninth stage- by three increments; (d) For the Government employees drawing pay from the thirteenth upto the fifteenth stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond the twelfth stage- by four increments; If by stepping up the pay as above, the pay of a Government employee gets fixed up at a stage in the revised scale which is higher than the stage at which the pay of a government employee who was drawing more pay in the same existing scale is fixed, the pay of the latter shall also be stepped up to the level at par with the former; Provided further that the fixation thus made shall ensure that every Government employee shall get at least one increment in the revised scale for every three increments (inclusive of ex-gratia increment (s), if any) in the existing scale; NOTE:- See Illustrations 1 to 7 appended to these rules for guidance……….”. 11. On 07.11.1998, State Finance Department issued clarifications (Annexure MA-1) concerning Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998. Some of the relevant clarifications pertaining to bunching of increments read as under :- “ …..3. As per second proviso below rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules, ibid, wherein the fixation of pay, the pay of Government employee, drawing pay at Benefit of bunching and stepping up of pay in such cases is to be allowed after identifying the particular officers/officials in the cadre. more than 3 consecutive stages in the existing scale gets bunched i.e. to say gets fixed I the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of the employees, who are drawing pay beyond the first three consecutive stages and so on in the existing scale, shall be stepped up by grant of increments according to number of stages. It may be elucidated whether the benefit of bunching in such cases has to be allowed after identifying the particular officers or on presumptive basis, with reference to stages bunched. 4. An officer exercises option for fixation of pay in the revised scales w.e.f. 1.1.96 without getting annual increment due on 1.1.1996 in existing scale, as per note (1) under rule-7 of the H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998. It needs to be clarified whether in such a case, the officer is to be first granted the normal increment due on 1.1.96 in the revised scale, before allowing him the benefit of bunching admissible, if any, or whether he is to be considered for the benefit of bunching before.” As is clear in Second Proviso under Rule 7 bunching is to be done by counting increments in the existing scale only. The pay actually drawn by an employee is to be taken into consideration. The pay of an employee, therefore, is to be fixed in the revised scale without taking annual due on 1.1.96 into consideration.” 12. Proviso to the aforesaid rule clearly provides for bunching of stages in existing scale. Though proviso to rule-7, as extracted herein above, clearly provides for bunching of stages in the existing scale but the appellants vide office report dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure R-1) circulated the advice given by Finance Department that all the benefit of bunching shall not be admissible on the initial ad-hoc service. Though proviso to rule-7, as extracted herein above, clearly provides for bunching of stages in the existing scale but the appellants vide office report dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure R-1) circulated the advice given by Finance Department that all the benefit of bunching shall not be admissible on the initial ad-hoc service. On the basis of aforesaid clarification issued by the Finance Department, appellants attempted to defeat the claim of the respondents for granting bunching benefit. 13. Before ascertaining the correctness of the stand put forth by the appellants vis-à-vis claim of the respondents, as noticed herein above, it would be appropriate and necessary to understand the concept of “bunching”. In common parlance, bunching occurs when two or more stages get bunched and benefit of one increment is to be given for every 2 or 3 stages bunched. Bunching occurs in the fixation of pay, when pay at two or more consecutive stages in a pay scale/grade pay in the pre-revised scale gets fixed at the same stage in the corresponding pay scale/level in the revised pay structure. 14. As per proviso to rule-7, the pay of Government employees drawing pay at more than three consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such of those government employees who are drawing pay beyond the first three consecutive stages in the existing scale shall be stepped up by grant of increment (s) in the revised scale, in the manner as provided in rule-7, reproduced herein above. 15. If the reply filed by the appellants is perused in its entirety, no plausible explanation has been rendered on record for denying the benefit of bunching, as sought for in the petition. While placing reliance upon judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in Sita Ram supra, wherein it came to be held that the petitioner in that case is only entitled to counting of ad-hoc service followed by regularisation for the purpose of increments and pension, appellants, declined the prayer of the respondents, for increment granted to them during ad-hoc service, however, aforesaid stand put forth by them came to be rightly rejected by learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order. Once, it is not in dispute that the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents has been also taken into consideration for grant of pension and increments in terms of Sita Ram and Paras Ram, supra, how same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of bunching of increments. Increments as already earned by an employee are taken into consideration for bunching in revised pay scale, as has been categorically provided in rule-7, reproduced above. Grant of increments and bunching of such increments is not dependent upon nature of service, be it ad-hoc or regular. Appellants, in their reply to the petition have themselves stated that, “in the bunching provisions of pay revision Rules, only the term “stages” or “increment earned” on the post in previous scale is mentioned and it is nowhere mentioned that the service should be on regular or ad-hoc basis.” Bunching of increments is purely dependent on number of increments earned by the employee in the existing scale. 16. Since, it is not in dispute that pursuant to decisions rendered in Paras Ram and Sita Ram, appellants have been granting benefit of increments earned by the employees during ad-hoc service before their regularisation, towards other benefits like pay fixation and pension, such employees are certainly entitled for bunching benefit in the revised pay scale also. 17. Having carefully perused the proviso to rule-7 as noted herein above as well as subsequent clarification dated 7.11.1998, issued by the Finance Department (Annexure A-1, page 55 of the petition), this court has no hesitation to conclude that letter dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure R-I) thereby rendering advice of Administrative Department that benefit of bunching shall not be admissible on the initial ad-hoc service, is totally contrary to the provisions contained in Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, as such, was rightly ignored by learned Single Judge, while passing impugned order, which otherwise, being based upon proper appreciation of facts and law, needs no intervention. 18. In view of the detailed discussion made supra, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Order dated 30.12.2022 passed in CWPOA no 7531 of 2019 is upheld. All pending applications stand disposed of.