Chander Bhusan Barowalia ORDER
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:
i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and all impugned acts of respondents, whereby the pensionary benefits are denied to petitioner be quashed and set aside.
ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to settle the case of the petitioner all consequential benefits alongwith interest on delayed payment.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Teacher in Education Department on 12.9.1994 on ad hoc basis and thereafter his services were regularized on 11.9.2004. 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.
3. 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. 11.9.2004 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. 15.5.2003, i.e., much earlier to the regularization of the petitioner.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
5. In Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P. and another, Latest MANU/HP/0300/2005 : HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, 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.
6. Later on, a Division Bench of this Court affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P and others decided on 15.7.2010.
7. In Paras Ram's case supra, the petitioner had passed diploma of Drawing Teacher and in the year 1991 came to be appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT) on 31.8.1995. The State Government took a conscious decision to regularize those Classical and Vernacular Teachers (C & VT), who had put in 10 years of service as JBT. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that the services rendered by him before his regularization against the post of JBT should be counted towards the annual increment and this Court on the basis of the letter dated 27.9.1977 allowed the petition and directed the respondents to count the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner before his regularization for the purpose of annual increments.
8. In Sita Ram's case supra, the view taken in Paras Ram's case was affirmed 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.
9. Both the aforesaid judgments have been considered and followed by another Division Bench of this Court in a judgment authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge) in LPA No. 179 of 2014 titled State of H.P and others Vs. Dechan Palmo decided on 6.7.2015.
10. In view of the consistent view of this Court, we 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.
11. 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 from today.
12. For compliance, to come up on 22.2.2022.
In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.