Krishan Kumar Mittal vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The Petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:

(i) That the Respondents may be directed to count ad-hoc service rendered by the applicant towards seniority and pay fixation.

(ii) That the Respondents may be directed to give the arrears of salary due and permissible to him on account of his pay fixation after giving him the benefit of ad-hoc service towards pay fixation.

(iii) That the Respondents may also be directed to give the benefit of ad-hoc service towards seniority and they may be further directed to re-draw the seniority list of P.E. Ts after counting the ad-hoc service of the applicant towards seniority. He may also be given consequential benefits of further promotion etc. on the basis of such seniority list.

The Petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) on ad hoc basis at a fixed pay of the initial start of the running scale of his category plus allowances as admissible under the Rules.

The Petitioner after his appointment worked as P.E.T. w.e.f. 3.1.1981. Thereafter, he was not paid salary for the vacation period but the Respondents continued his appointment as P.E.T. from time to time. Admittedly, this was followed by the Petitioner''s regular appointment. The Petitioner claims that some persons junior to him were regularized earlier to him and secondly that the period of his ad hoc service has not been counted for the purposes of granting increment to him in regular service.

As far as the first relief of seniority is concerned, the Petitioner, in my opinion, is not entitled to such relief. Firstly, the petition is belated since the seniority of the Petitioner was fixed in the year 1987 and he did not approach the Tribunal till the year 1999. True it is, that the Petitioner alleges that he had made representations in this behalf but not a single representation has been attached with the petition. Secondly, the Petitioner has neither named the persons who were junior to him nor arrayed them as party Respondents and in their absence no relief of seniority can be granted to him.

However, as far as the second relief is concerned, the Petitioner is entitled to the same. Reference in this behalf may be made to the letter dated 27.9.1997 issued by the Department of Education which reads as follows:

I am directed to refer to your letter No. EDN-H(2)B(2) 6/88-III dated the 12th September, 1977, on the above subject and to say that where there is a break in Ad-hoc service and regular appointment, the period of ad-hoc service will not count towards increment, but where the ad-hoc 3 appointment is following by immediately regular appointment and there is no break in service, the ad hoc service will be counted towards increment in the normal course.

The contents of this letter clearly show that if ad hoc appointment is followed by regular appointment and there is no break in service, the ad hoc service will be counted towards grant of increment in the regular service. The Petitioner worked uninterruptedly, except for the vacation period which is also not a break in service. His appointment on ad hoc basis was made after following due process of recruitment. Therefore, the Respondents are directed to treat the period from 3.1.1981 till the regular appointment of the Petitioner on 3.7.1987 as uninterrupted ad hoc service and accordingly grant him increments in regular service from the date of his regular appointment. The Respondents are further directed to work out the monetary benefits and pay the same along with interest @ 6; p.a. to the Petitioner within four months from today. In case the amount is not paid within four months then interest shall be chargeable @ 12% p.a. instead of 6% p.a.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.