Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Himachal Pradesh Benefit of ad hoc service, rendered by an employee, prior to his regular service on the same post would count for the purpose of increment and pension MANU/HP/1197/2021 - (28 Dec 2021) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Ramesh Chand Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Teacher in Education Department on 12th September, 1994 on ad hoc basis and thereafter his services were regularized on 11th September, 2004. It is not in dispute that the respondents themselves have counted the ad hoc service rendered by the Petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments, but have refused to grant pension constraining the petitioner to file the present petition. 
According to the Respondents, the Petitioner is not entitled to pension, as he became regular employee of the department only on and w.e.f. 11th September, 2004 and, therefore, the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 do not apply to him because the said Rules ceased to be operative w.e.f. 15th May, 2003, i.e., much earlier to the regularization of the Petitioner. 
In Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P. and another, a Single Bench of this Court held that, benefit of ad hoc service, rendered by an employee, prior to his regular service on the same post would count for the purpose of increment and pension. 
Later on, a Division Bench of this Court affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P and others and it was held that, if ad hoc service is followed by a regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments and pension and it was further held that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment will also count for pension. 
In view of the consistent view of this Court, present Court have no difficulty in concluding that the service rendered by the Petitioner on ad hoc basis, which has otherwise been recognized for the purpose of increments, will have to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to settle the case of the petitioner for his claim regarding the pensionary benefits and if he is found entitled, release the same within a period of two months.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Ad hoc service, Pensionary benefits, Entitlement</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>