NISHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted that the issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram v. State of H.P. and Ors. The text of the judgment reads as follows:

(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 increment, will count for pension also. To that extent the Appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also. However, so far as the seniority is concerned, the basic norms of seniority will be counted on the date of appointment in regular service, qua those who are already in regular service as on that date. If the claim of the Petitioner-Appellant is to be accepted, it will unsettle the settled seniority of those regular teachers. It may also not be out of context to note that none of the affected teachers is before us. Be that, as it may. 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.

(3.) With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.