Prem Lal Sharma vs State of H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of mainly the following substantive reliefs:

(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant annual increments to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and arrears thereof may kindly be ordered to be paid to the petitioners at the rate of 24% per annum;

(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to count the entire contract services of the petitioners towards the pensionary benefits''

(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to give the seniority to the petitioners in the cadre of Lecturer from the date of their initial appointment;

It is undisputed that the petitioners had started the career as Lecturers on contract basis and their services infact had been terminated for a brief period but later on they were all reengaged on the directions of this Court in CWP No. 415 of 2000. Now, the petitioners have all been regularized vide order dated 27.7.2010 and claim that the entire contract service of the petitioners rendered by them be counted towards the pensionary benefits. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court in case titled as Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. and anr., CWP No. 4550 of 2010, decided on 16.12.2010 and the judgment in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram versus State of H.P. & ors., decided on 15.7.2010.

At this stage, it may be observed that in so far as CWP No. 4550 of 2010 is concerned, this Court had disposed of the same with the following directions:

(1) The tenure appointees in the education department if appointed without break in regular service shall be granted increments during the tenure period and the said service will count for pension, as in the case of ad hoc appointees in the education department.

(2) As far as contract teachers are concerned, the 1st respondent may consider their case for increments or for counting the service as qualifying service for pension, having regard to all relevant factors, some of which are referred to above. It will be open to the petitioners to jointly also file appropriate representations. Orders in that regard will be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment/representations.

While, in so far as Sita Ram''s case is concerned, therein the claim pertained to ad hoc employees, who had been granted increments and the period of service rendered by them on ad hoc basis was ordered to be counted for the purpose of increment as also pension.

The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners by filing reply wherein it has been contended that in compliance to the directions of this Court in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, the State Government had taken a decision on the ground that there was no condition in the contract that the service rendered during the contract period will be counted for increment purpose or for regularization. Further, there was no provision in regular service to provide increment for the service rendered during the contract period. It was further averred that the contract appointees regularized after May, 2003, are not entitled to be governed under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the amendment made in the Rules applicable to the State of H.P. and thus the benefit of grant of annual increment and pension was not admissible to the petitioners. It was further averred that while deciding this issue of counting of ad hoc/tenure/contract services towards regularization, this Court after taking into consideration its earlier decision in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, in LPA No. 114 of 2010 titled as State of H.P. & anr. Vs. Uma Dutt Sharma, had categorically held as " the ad hoc/tenure service rendered by the employee followed by regular appointment shall count for the purpose of increment and pension but not contract service". It was further averred that the appointment letters issued to the petitioners contemplated execution of separate agreements, whereby their service conditions were to be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement, as agreed to between the parties and thereby, no such benefits had been extended to the petitioners.

The petitioners have filed rejoinder wherein it has been claimed that this Court itself has held that contract appointment is better than ad hoc/tenure service and in this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit merely on the count of they being contract appointees, when the same has been extended to the ad hoc/tenure appointees.

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case meticulously.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that once the benefit of ad hoc/tenure service has been extended to all those appointees for the purpose of pension, than the same cannot be denied to the contractual employees, particularly when they are better placed. To support her contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on paragraph 15 of the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh and ors. vrs. State of H.P. and ors., reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293. The same reads thus:

The contention of the State that the employees'' appointed on contract basis are lower status to the ad hoc employees and therefore, cannot be granted salary during the vacations is totally ill founded. In fact, a contractual employee has been appointed after following some procedure even though the procedure may not be in accordance with rules. His status is better than that of an ad hoc employee who may be appointed without following any procedure whatsoever. The apex Court in Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , has clearly held that the persons appointed on ad hoc basis are entitled to salary for the vacations and the State being a model employer cannot follow invidious method of making public appointments from the first day of the academic term and terminate the appointment on the last date of the academic term. The teachers were appointed on contract basis have worked for a period of more than 2 to 3 years and cannot be deprived of the benefit of salary for the vacation period.

I am afraid, the plea raised by the petitioners is totally ill-founded, as the observations made in Baldev Singh''s case (supra), were in fact-situation obtaining in that very case, which related to the large scale appointments through various modes, save and except, through the regular mode of selection, which invited the wrath of this Court and the observations therein are thus to be confined and read in the fact-situation obtaining therein.

In so far as the present case is concerned, the same is fully covered against the petitioners by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No. 114 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. & anr. Versus Uma Dutt Sharma, wherein this Court held as follows:

The State has come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.7.2009, passed in CWP(T) No. 2599 of 2008. The issue pertains to the counting of adhoc/tenure/contract service rendered by an employee prior to his regular appointment for the purpose of increment and pension. Learned Single Judge, has taken the view that there is no difference in the terminology whether it is adhoc, tenure or contract and that all are the same.

This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in judgment in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, titled Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. and another, wherein it has been held that adhoc/tenure service rendered by the employee followed by regular appointment shall count for the purpose of increment and pension but not contract service. The writ petitioner is a tenure appointee. Therefore, on facts, the case does not call for any interference. However, the observation that the contract service followed by regular service also will count for the purpose of increment and pension cannot be sustained, in the light of the Bench decision, referred to above. To that extent, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is disposed of making it further clear that the writ petitioner, being a tenure appointee, no interference on facts is called for as far as the relief granted to the writ petitioner is concerned.

No other point is urged. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own cost. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.