Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 07.07.2025 vs Csk Hpkv on 23 July, 2025
2025:HHC:23897 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 27 of 2019 Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Decided on: 23.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ .
Nageshwar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
CSK HPKV, Palampur ...Respondent
__________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta,
Advocate.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:
(ia) That the impugned condition No. (iii) contained in office order dated 27.11.2020, Annexure A-16, and/or any other such condition in any other Rule/instructions, which debars the petitioner from pension under the old pension scheme, may be quashed and set-aside being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS2 2025:HHC:23897 (ib) That the respondent university may be directed to count the service of petitioner as Assistant Scientist (Bio- chemistry) pursuant to his appointment order dated 07.09.2000, followed by his adhoc appointment in regular .
pay scale vide order dated 03.03.2001 and further followed by its regularization as Scientist (Biochemistry) vide order dated 27.11.2020, Annexure A-16, without any interruption, as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits on his retirement from service on 31.08.2021, under GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme of the respondent university with all consequential benefits including penal interest on delayed payments.
2. The petitioner was initially engaged as Assistant Scientist (Bio-chemistry) by the respondent-university (for short, "the University") w.e.f. 07.09.2000 for a period of six months on the fixed salary of Rs.10,500/- per month. He was further appointed on the same post in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- (UGC) on adhoc basis for a period of six months or till regular arrangement was made, whichever was earlier, w.e.f. 12.03.2001 vide order dated 03.03.2001.
3. The appointment of the petitioner was extended till filling up of the post on regular basis or till termination of the project/scheme vide order dated 13.03.2003.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS3 2025:HHC:23897
4. On 04.05.2010, petitioner submitted a representation for regularization of his services as he had completed more than 10 years of adhoc services.
.
5. A memorandum was submitted for consideration of Board of Management of respondent-university proposing regularization of adhoc appointees on completion of 8 years services in the respondent-university against available vacancy. A statement showing details of teaching adhoc appointees was provided which included the name of petitioner also.
6. The Board of Management (for short, "the BoM") of the university considered the agenda item No.3.10 in its 103rd meeting held on 01.08.2012 and it was decided to regularize such adhoc employees, who fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and were recruited by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the powers under Section 25(11) of the Act from prospective date.
7. In pursuance to aforesaid decision of the BoM, interviews were conducted and the petitioner also appeared before the Selection Committee on 03.12.2012. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was placed ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:23897 before the BoM in its 104th meeting held on 08.01.2013 vide item NO.3.5, but the consideration on said item was deferred.
.
8. In the meanwhile, on 19.09.2012, services of seven non-teaching adhoc employees were regularized in pursuance to decision taken by the BoM in its 103rd meeting held on 01.08.2012 on agenda item No.3.10.
9. On 27.07.2015, the petitioner submitted reminder to the university for his regularization as he had already completed about 15 years.
10. The petitioner having failed to get positive response from the university filed O.A. No.1560 of 2017 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 10.04.2017. In the said O.A., the university filed its reply and submitted that in pursuance to BoM decision dated 18.03.2017 taken in 111th meeting vide item No. 6.10, it had been desired to formulate a policy for regularization of adhoc appointees and to submit the same for consideration of the Government. It was also stated that the respondent-
university was in the process of formulating policy and thereafter to forward the same to the Government. In this ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:23897 manner, it was represented that the matter with respect to regularization of adhoc appointees was under consideration.
11. On abolition of Administrative Tribunal, the O.A. .
No. 1560 of 2017 was transferred to the files of this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No. 27 of 2019 i.e. the instant petition. On 15.11.2019, when the matter was listed in this Court, the university had stated that the name of the petitioner had already been sent to the Government for consideration. Accordingly, a direction was issued to place the outcome of consideration before the Court on 29.11.2019. On the adjourned date i.e. 29.11.2019, the university filed a status report according to which the Board of Management in its 111th meeting held on 18.03.2017 had desired to formulate the policy for regularization of ad hoc appointees and to submit a policy together with detail of adhoc employees to the Government for consideration. This Court then issued direction to university to frame policy within four weeks and to forward the same to the Government and the Government was also directed to take a decision thereon within six weeks thereafter.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS6 2025:HHC:23897
12. The university, thus, framed the policy for regularization of adhoc appointees and the said policy was approved by the State on 04.05.2020.
.
13. The services of petitioner were regularized vide office order dated 27.11.2020 with stipulation that the regularization of petitioner would be governed by the University Contributory Pension Scheme, 2007.
14. The petitioner submitted his joining report reserving his right in the pending writ petition. The conditional joining report of the petitioner was not accepted and such fact was brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 10.12.2020 allowed the petitioner to provisionally join subject to further orders that may be passed in the writ petition.
15. On 06.09.2021, the petitioner submitted representation to the university with a request to count his pre-regularization adhoc services for pensionary benefits.
The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the university on 28.12.2021.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS7 2025:HHC:23897
16. The petitioner has amended the petition bringing on record the subsequent events and the prayers have also been accordingly amended as noticed above.
.
17. The university has filed reply to the amended petition. It is the stand of the respondent that the petitioner was an adhoc appointee and there was no policy for regularization of adhoc appointees in the university till 04.05.2020. It is also submitted that as the petitioner was not a contract employee, he cannot seek parity for the purpose of regularization with the employees appointed on contract basis who were governed under the regularization policy formulated by the State Government and adopted by the respondent-university.
18. The facts as averred in the petition have not been disputed save and except that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit under Old Pension Scheme.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
20. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the adhoc service of the petitioner w.e.f.
07.09.2000 till 27.11.2020 i.e. the date of his regularization ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:23897 is liable to be considered as qualifying service for grant of pension under Old Pension Scheme or in other words under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
.
21. In Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, LPA No. 36 of 2010, decided on 15.07.2010, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while affirming the exposition made by this Court in Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. and another Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, reaffirmed the principles that the adhoc service followed by regular service in the same post can be counted for the purpose of increments and further that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also.
22. The principle laid down in Sita Ram (supra) was followed by another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 28.12.2021 passed in CWP No.3018 of 2021 titled Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P. and others. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Ramesh Chand has held as under:
"8. In Sita Ram's case supra, the view taken in Paras Ram's case was affirmed and it was held that if ad hoc service is followed by a regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:23897 increments and pension and it was further held that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment will also count for pension.
9. Both the aforesaid judgments have been considered .
and followed by another Division Bench of this Court in a judgment authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge) in LPA No.179 of 2014 titled State of H.P and others Vs. Dechan Palmo decided on 6.7.2015.
10. In view of the consistent view of this Court, we have no difficulty in concluding that the service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis, which has otherwise been recognized for the purpose of increments, will have to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits."
23. The afore-stated principle has further been followed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed in CWPOA No. 1473 of 2019 titled Dr. Asha Devi and others vs. State of H.P. and others, in which it has been held as under:
4(iv) Notification dated 15.05.2003 amending CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 states that it is only the appointments made in the State on or after the date of publication of the notification, which would be excluded from the purview of applicability of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In the instant case, the respondents have themselves treated the petitioners to have been appointed with effect from the date of their ad hoc appointments, which are all prior to the notifying of Contributory Pension Scheme, 2006 (15.05.2003).::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS
10 2025:HHC:23897 4(v) Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 (Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P.), was a case wherein it was held that the services rendered on ad hoc basis for long period cannot be permitted to be rendered otiose. Relevant para of the .
judgment is as under :-
"4. In the present case the petitioner has uninterruptedly worked against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis and has been awarded special certificate. He was regularized on 13.11.1997. In view of Annexure PB, the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization are to be counted towards annual increments. The Petitioner has served the respondent- State as Junior Basic Trained Teacher r from 1987. He is entitled to get the entire services counted which has rendered on ad hoc basis with effect from 1987 for the purpose of annual increments. The petitioner has worked as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher for all intents and purposes and has been issued a certificate by the State as per notification dated 31.8.1995. There is no distinction visualized/contemplated in Annexure PB to which category the benefit of ad hoc services is to be granted for the purpose of annual increments. This notification will cover all the cases where the persons had worked on ad hoc basis and immediately thereafter they were regularized without any break in the Education Department. The services which the petitioner had similarly situate persons have rendered on ad hoc basis for a long period, cannot be permitted to be rendered otiose."::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS
11 2025:HHC:23897 In LPA No. 36 of 2010 (Sita Ram Vs. State of HP & Ors.), decided on 15.06.2010, the Division Bench further clarified the decision in Paras Ram's case supra that if ad hoc service is followed by regular service in the same .
post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments and that it is a settled principle of law that if any service that is counted for the purpose of increments, will count for pension also. Relevant extract from the judgment is as under :-
"2 .................However, this Court in Paras Ram's case had laid down the law that if ad hoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments. It is also settled principle of law that r any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. To that extent the appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also.................."
To the similar effect is the decision rendered in a bunch of petitions with lead case CWP No.4550 of 2010 (Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and another and connected matters) decided on 16.12.2010, wherein it was inter alia held that "all the tenure appointees appointed on running grade and followed without break by regular appointment are entitled to count their service period for increments and pension." The writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions: -
"13. In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:-
(1) The tenure appointees in the education department if appointed without break in regular service shall be granted increments ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS
12 2025:HHC:23897 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."
In a decision rendered on 07.12.2023 in CWPOA No.6956 of 2020 (Rama Nand Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors), where the petitioner therein had prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him pension and retiral benefits by counting his entire service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension, after noticing several authoritative pronouncements on the subject matter, the Division Bench held that the petitioner was entitled to count his contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with all consequential benefits.
5. In view of above reasons, it can be concluded that ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners, in this case, is liable to be considered as qualifying service towards pension; Service of petitioners, who are to be construed as appointees prior to 15.05.2003, is governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972."
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS13 2025:HHC:23897
24. Thus, when the proposition of law is well settled, this Court finds no reasons not to follow the same.
25. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a .
judgment dated 27.11.2021 passed by another co-ordinate bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2021 of 2019 titled Rajan Katoch vs. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar, H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and another to assert that the University cannot apply different standards to similarly situated persons. He would contend that the petitioner Rajan Katoch in CWPOA No. 2021 of 2019 was also an adhoc appointee of university and in fact was appointed in pursuance to same advertisement against which the petitioner was appointed.
The Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment while allowing the petition had directed the respondent-
university to regularize/absorb the petitioner against the post in question, from the date the persons appointed alongwith him on co-terminus/adhoc basis in the year 2000, were ordered to be regularized/absorbed, alongwith all consequential benefits.
26. In the facts noticed above, the petitioner herein is right in alleging discrimination. The petitioner in CWPOA ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:23897 No. 2021 of 2019 was appointed as Assistant Analytical Chemist (Biochemistry) in pursuance to advertisement No.3/2000 vide appointment letter dated 23.06.2000. He .
had then continued to serve on adhoc basis. The co-
ordinate bench found discrimination in the case of petitioner with certain other similarly situated employees in whose case the words "co-terminus with the Project"
inserted in the appointment letters were deleted and since all other persons were absorbed by the respondent-
university, the petitioner Rajan Katoch was granted the relief vide judgment dated 27.11.2021 as noticed above.
27. In Direct Recruit Class II Engineers Officers Association Vs State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 even that adhoc service, which resulted from appointment(s) made in terms of prevalent service rules, was held liable to be counted for seniority.
28. Thus, the adhoc service preceded by appointment in terms of service rules cannot be disregarded altogether.
29. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed, condition No. (iii) contained in office order dated 27.11.2020, Annexure A-16, which debars the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS
15 2025:HHC:23897 from pension under the Old Pension Scheme is held to be inoperative being in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-university is directed .
to count the adhoc services of petitioner as Assistant Scientist (Biochemistry) w.e.f. 07.09.2000 till the date of his regularization towards qualifying service for grant of benefit under the Old Pension Scheme or in other words under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner is held entitled to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, from the date of his retirement. The respondent-university is directed to complete the entire exercise within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment including disbursal of arrears including pension and gratuity to the petitioner, failing which the respondent-university shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum.
30. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
23rd July, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya)
(GR) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS