MAST RAM SAINI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of a common question of law arising for determination as to whether the cases of ad hoc employees of the State Government are governed by section IS of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Central Act No. 13 of 1985), hereinafter called as the Act.

(2.) Petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 298 of 1986 were appointed as Lecturers in different disciplines on ad hoc basis during different spells of time as detailed in the petition On March 16, 1986, they filed the present writ petition in this Court seeking direction against the respondents therein to treat the period of their ad hoc appointment as having continued from the very beginning without any break and to allow them to continue to be in service till regular appointments are made and also to pay to them arrears of pay for the period of artificial breaks,

(3.) On the basis of notification dated December 31, 1985, January 1, 1986 was notified as the appointed day on which the provisions of the Act, in so far as they relate to Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, were made applicable and vide notification dated August 26, 1986, the State Administrative Tribunal {hereinafter called as the Tribunal) was established by the Central Government on and with effect from September 1, 1986. The Tribunal in view of section 28 of the Act, which provides for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all civil court, except the Supreme Court or any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been exercising jurisdiction, power and authority conferred by section 15 of the Act within the State on and from September 1, 1986, in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed to any service or post.