State of H.P. and Another vs Uma Dutt Sharma

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—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 v. State of H.P. and Anr., 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.