SARITA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The moot question in this petition is whether the services of an employee appointed on adhoc basis followed by regular appointment is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. Pursuant to the interview held by the duly constituted Selection Committee on 25. 6. 1983, Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes the petitioner came to be appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (for short 'TGT) and joined as such on 17. 04. 1985. Thereafter her services came to be regularised only on 23. 08. 1994 despite her appointment having been made against a sanctioned post. In the interregnum, some of the aggrieved persons whose adhoc services were not counted for the purpose of regularisation approached this Court by way of CWP No. 372 of 1985 titled as Surinder Kumar and others vs. State of H. P. and another , wherein this Court on 04. 03. 1986 passed the following directions:

(3.) In compliance to the above directions, the respondents acceded to the request of the petitioners therein and directed the counting of the adhoc services rendered by the petitioners therein for all purposes. However, the benefit of this decision was only confined to the petitioners in CWP No. 372 of 1985 and not to the other similarly situated persons, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs: