PREM LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court for grant of mainly the following substantive reliefs:

(2.) IT is undisputed that the petitioners had started the career as Lecturers on contract basis and their services infact had been terminated for a brief period but later on they were all reengaged on the directions of this Court in CWP No. 415 of 2000. Now, the petitioners have all been regularized vide order dated 27.7.2010 and claim that the entire contract service of the petitioners rendered by them be counted towards the pensionary benefits. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court in case titled as Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. and anr., CWP No. 4550 of 2010, decided on 16.12.2010 and the judgment in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram versus State of H.P. & ors., decided on 15.7.2010.

(3.) THE respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners by filing reply wherein it has been contended that in compliance to the directions of this Court in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, the State Government had taken a decision on the ground that there was no condition in the contract that the service rendered during the contract period will be counted for increment purpose or for regularization. Further, there was no provision in regular service to provide increment for the service rendered during the contract period. It was further averred that the contract appointees regularized after May, 2003, are not entitled to be governed under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the amendment made in the Rules applicable to the State of H.P. and thus the benefit of grant of annual increment and pension was not admissible to the petitioners. It was further averred that while deciding this issue of counting of ad hoc/tenure/contract services towards regularization, this Court after taking into consideration its earlier decision in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, in LPA No. 114 of 2010 titled as State of H.P. & anr. Vs. Uma Dutt Sharma, had categorically held as " the ad hoc/tenure service rendered by the employee followed by regular appointment shall count for the purpose of increment and pension but not contract service". It was further averred that the appointment letters issued to the petitioners contemplated execution of separate agreements, whereby their service conditions were to be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement, as agreed to between the parties and thereby, no such benefits had been extended to the petitioners.