Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 304 (HP)

Shakti Chand Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-07

RANJAN SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. 1. Petitioners [Shakti Chand Sharma & Amar Nath Sharma], have come up before this Court seeking the following relief:- “That the adhoc service of the petitioners rendered from July 29.06.1979 to 24.05.1982 in the case of petitioner No.1 and from July 23.07.1979 to 24.05.1982 in the case of Petitioner No.2 may kindly be ordered to be counted towards pension and other retiral benefits w.e.f. due date with all consequentialbenefits.” 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis in June-July 1979 and they worked as such with fictional breaks till May 1982. However, from May 1982, the petitioners have served without fictional breaks i.e. continuously and uninterruptedly without. The petitioners were given annual increments for the adhoc service rendered from May 1982 onwards till their regularization as TGTs on 23.09.1985, in case of petitioner No.1 and w.e.f. 07.10.1985 in case of petitioner No.2. Thereafter, they served in various capacities and the petitioner No.1 retired from service as Principle [School Cadre] on 30.09.2009 and the petitioner No.2 retired from service as Principal [School Cadre] on 30.04.2010.In above background, the petitioners are seeking benefit of adhoc service rendered as Trained Graduate Teachers from June-July 1979 till May 1982, to be counted for pension on the plea that once the respondents have granted increments for this period of since [June, July 1979 to 1982] then, such service should counted towards service rendered from May 1982 till retirement(s) for pension, as given to other incumbents after judicial intervention and/or otherwise in view of fact that the action of the State Authorities in giving fictional breaks after short intervals was a camouflage for depriving the petitioners of continuous service and to deprive him of the service benefits accruing therefrom. 3. The Respondents No.1 & 2 have filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 06.08.2021, taking the plea of delay and laches; and the period of adhoc service with breaks cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits; and when, in view of CCS [Pension] Rules only the continuous and uninterrupted adhoc/temporary/officiating service followed by regularization is countable as qualifying service for pension/retiral benefits. In these circumstances, the Respondents-State Authorities have stated that adhoc service rendered by petitioner with breaks [June 1979 till May 1982] cannot be counted for pension/retiral benefits and the prayer for dismissing the writ petition was made. In these circumstances, the Respondents-State Authorities have stated that adhoc service rendered by petitioner with breaks [June 1979 till May 1982] cannot be counted for pension/retiral benefits and the prayer for dismissing the writ petition was made. 4. In rebuttal, the petitioners have filed a rejoinder, denying the averments of the reply. The petitioners stated that the Respondents have granted increments and seniority to the petitioner for entire adhoc period [as TGT, with breaks and without break]. It is averred that once the period from June 1979 has been counted for increments and seniority then, such period deserves to be counted for pension/retiral benefits and the claim for higher retiral benefits including higher pension, is a recurring cause, resulting in loss every month. 5. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions, states that the petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioners, in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in LPA No. 36 of 2010 , titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , dated 15.07.2010, mandating that any service which counts for increments shall count for pension and moreover, in facts of this case, once the period of adhoc service of petitioners has been counted for increments [as in petition and rejoinder] then, such period may be counted for pension/retiral benefits [Statement Taken on Record]. 6. Keeping in view the limited prayer made by Learned Vice Counsel appearing for petitioners, the Learned State Counsel states that the claim of the petitioners needs to be examined on facts in the light of the aforesaid judgment. 7. 6. Keeping in view the limited prayer made by Learned Vice Counsel appearing for petitioners, the Learned State Counsel states that the claim of the petitioners needs to be examined on facts in the light of the aforesaid judgment. 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by Learned Vice Counsel for the petitioners and leaving all questions open, this Court disposes of the instant petition, with the following directions:- (i) State Authorities, including Respondent No.2-Director Higher Education Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, is directed to examine the case of petitioners for counting the adhoc service rendered as TGTs [with fictional breaks] from June-July 1979 till May 1982 towards the service rendered from May 1982 till retirement(s) on 30.04.2009 to 30.04.2010; in case the increments have been released for this period; in the light of judgment in Sita Ram’s case (supra) without discriminating the petitioners; with all admissible service benefits, in accordance with law; (ii) State Authorities are directed to pass necessary orders, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law, within two months from today; (iii) Needless to say that this Court has not adverted to the merits or the eligibility/ entitlement of petitioners; which shall be examined in light of judgement in case of Sita Ram [supra] if applicable on facts-laws; within the above period; (iv) Parties to bear respective costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.