Gian Chand vs State of H.P. and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner claims the benefit of ad hoc/tenure service for the purpose of increments and seniority.

According to the Petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors.

Therefore, the Respondents are directed to examine the matter and verify the facts in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment referred to above by the Petitioner.

So far as the claim for granting the increments to the Petitioner after counting the period of ad hoc service followed by regular service with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc. is concerned, the issue is covered in favour of the Petitioner by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram v. State.

Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that he would file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for him to do so.

The Respondent concerned will examine the matter, after verifying the facts, in the light of the judgment in Sita Ram''s case referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment, referred to above.

The writ petition is disposed of, as above, so also the pending applications, if any.