N.D. Sharma vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of intervening developments, only relief No. 1 survives, which is as follows:

That the applicant may be held entitled to count the period of ad-hoc service from 5.6.1990 to 10.6.2000 towards seniority, payment of annual increments and pay fixation etc. Respondents may be directed to give to the applicant the arrears of salary alongwith interest due and admissible to him after giving him the benefit of ad-hoc service towards seniority and pay fixation.

As far as counting of ad-hoc service for the purpose of increment and pension is concerned, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by a decision of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled Sita Ram v. State of H.P. and Ors. There will be a direction to second respondent to look into the matter in light of judgment, referred to above, and do the needful within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.