Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Others vs State of H.P. and Another <BR> Dev Raj Vs State of H.P. and Others <BR> Umesh Kumar Vs State of H.P.

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioners claim the benefit of ad-hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pension and increments. According to the Petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgments of this Court rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram v. State & CWP No. 4550 of 2010, titled as Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Anr. It is for the Respondents to examine the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No. 1/competent authority to examine the matter in light of the judgments, referred to above, and take appropriate action within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition and copies of the judgments, referred to above, by the Petitioner concerned.

These writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.