RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the relief of counting adhoc service of petitioner from 3.2.1986 to 4.3. 1995 for purposes of annual increments and pay fixation. It has been stated that the petitioner was engaged as Instructor at ITI Shahpur on 24.10.1985 for 89 days. THE petitioner continued to serve ITI Shahpur but he was given fictional breaks after 89 days.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Sheet Metal Instructor in ITI Shahpur on adhoc basis on the basis of recommendation made by the duly constituted selection committee headed by the Director of Technical Education and petitioner joined as such on 3.2.1986. THE petitioner was regularised on 4.3.1995. THE petitioner has claimed increments for the period he served the department on adhoc basis from 3.2.1986 to 4.3.1995 and also prayed for fixation of his pay accordingly. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 16284 of 2008 Amar Singh vs. State of H.P. and anr. THE judgment dated 19.5.2009 in CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008 Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. has been noticed in the judgment dated 15.12.2010.

(3.) THE learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in view of letter dated 2.6.2004 Annexure R-1 the petitioner is not entitled to count adhoc service for the purpose of increments. THE point involved in the present case is similar to the point which was involved in Amar Singh (supra). THE submission made by learned Additional Advocate General is noticed only to be rejected in view of the judgment rendered in Amar Singh (supra). THE State has already taken the decision in view of letter dated 10/15.3.2011 for implementing the judgment in Paras Ram (supra) after the dismissal of SLP filed by the State by the Apex Court in Paras Ram case on 5.4.2010.