NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Ramesh Chand Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (28 Dec 2021)

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

Service

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.

Tags : AD HOC SERVICE   PENSIONARY BENEFITS   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved