MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In LHLJ 2009 (2) 887 (Paras Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another), it was held that ad-hoc service followed without break by immediate regularization is to be counted towards annual increments. While arriving at this decision, the Court noted Office Letter dtd. 27/9/1977 which reads as under :-

(2.) Relying upon the above decisions, petitioners have raised further contention in the instant writ petition that (i) increments given for such ad-hoc service should also be counted towards bunching benefits and (ii) to count ad-hoc service for grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP). The substantive reliefs prayed for by the petitioners are as follows :-

(3.) On completion of 10 years of ad-hoc service, the petitioners' services were regularized by the respondents by awarding them special JBT certificates. In terms of the judgments passed in Paras Ram and Sita Ram's cases (supra), the benefit of ad-hoc service has been granted to the petitioners for the purpose of releasing them annual increments. It is also not in dispute that the ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioners is also to be counted towards due and admissible pension to the petitioners. In view of law laid down in aforesaid decisions, ad-hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority [Re: (2021) 12 Scale 159 Malook Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others] wherein it was held that initial stop gap arrangement being not in accordance with the rules and the ad-hoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.