Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved