Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 14.07.2025 vs Csk Hpkv And Another on 23 July, 2025
2025:HHC:23948 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 117 of 2019 Reserved on: 14.07.2025 Decided on: 23.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ .
Dr. Sheela Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
CSK HPKV and another ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for r respondent No.1.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. B.S. Negi, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:
"(iia) 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:23948 (iib) That the respondent university may be directed to count the service of petitioner as Assistant Professor (Physics) pursuant to her appointment order dated 23.06.2000 on adhoc basis in regular pay scale and .
further followed by her regularization as Assistant Professor (Physics) vide order dated 27.11.2020, Annexure A-16, without any interruption, as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits under GPF- cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme of the respondent university with all consequential benefits.
(iic) That the respondent university may be directed to consider the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner continuously without any interruption since the year 2000 and followed by regularization to be counted towards grant of Higher Academic Grade Pay (AGP) as well as promotion to the next Higher Rank under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).
(iii) That the service of the petitioner may be held to be regularized from the initial date of appointment with all other consequential benefits."
2. The petitioner has been awarded Ph.D. degree in Physics by the University of Jammu in the year 1999. Two courses as the Course Work namely Spectroscopy and Computer Application-Fortran have also been completed by the petitioner with aggregate percentage of 68% marks as part of curriculum of Ph.D. course.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS3 2025:HHC:23948
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor (Physics) in the respondent university w.e.f.25.11.1999 as Part-time Teacher with honorarium @ .
Rs.100/- per credit hour.
4. The petitioner was then appointed as Assistant Professor (Physics) on adhoc basis for six months w.e.f.
23.06.2000. Her contractual period was extended from time to time and vide order dated 13.03.2003, the respondent university appointed the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Physics) on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 (UGC). This appointment was made till the post was filled on regular basis.
5. The services of the petitioner have been regularized w.e.f. 27.11.2000.
6. Initially, the petitioner had prayed for the relief of regularization of her services. Now, since her services have been regularized, the petitioner has amended the petition for the reliefs as noticed above. The services of the petitioner have been regularized with the stipulation that the petitioner would be governed by the University Contributory Pension Scheme, 2007.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS4 2025:HHC:23948
7. The case of the petitioner is that she has been working against the vacant post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the regular pay scale with benefit of increments .
since the year 2000. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized from the initial date of appointment or in alternative the adhoc service rendered by her was to be counted towards qualifying service.
8. The petitioner is also claiming the same treatment as has been given to Dr. Rajan Katoch. According to petitioner, Dr. Rajan Katoch was similarly situated and after passing of judgment by this Court on 27.11.2021 in the case of Dr. Rajan Katoch, he has been granted the benefit of regularization from the initial date of his appointment.
9. The further claim of the petitioner is that she was eligible for being appointed as Assistant Professor (Physics) in the University. The petitioner has been representing time and again for regularization of her services and lastly, her services have been regularized w.e.f. 27.11.2000 belatedly.
10. The university has taken a stand that the petitioner was an adhoc appointee and there was no policy ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:23948 for regularization of adhoc appointees in the University till 04.05.2020.
11. It has also been alleged by the respondent .
university that the petitioner did not hold the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) initially. As per the respondent-university, the eligibility conditions required Ph.D. degree with NET qualification.
The exemption was only for those Ph.D. degree-holders, who had submitted their thesis or completed the Ph.D. degree before 1993. Thus, it has been urged that, since, the petitioner had completed her Ph.D. degree in 1999, she was not holding the essential qualification at the time of initial appointment on adhoc basis.
12. During the course of hearing of the case, the respondent-university has placed on record written instructions dated 11.07.2025, in which it has been admitted that the petitioner had submitted representation dated 13.12.2012 to waive off the condition of NET and regularize her adhoc services. However, as per required educational qualifications, the essentiality of NET could be waived off for the candidates holding Ph.D. degree provided ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:23948 it had been done with course of work as prescribed by the UGC Regulation, 2009 and the candidate had atleast two full length publications having a NAAS rating not less than .
4, on the last date of submission of application.
13. The above stand has been taken by the respondent on the basis of amendment carried in the service rules of the University on 15.11.2012 on the basis of ICAR guidelines issued vide letter dated 26.12.2011.
14. It has further been submitted that in order to examine the case of the petitioner for regularization, the Vice-Chancellor had constituted a Committee on 26.12.2012. The Committee in its report dated 09.01.2013 had submitted that the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) effective from 01.01.2012 subject to production of the certificate of clearance of course work from the Registrar of Jammu University. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to produce the certificate of course work done with Ph.D. Programme, alongwith result/marks/grade obtained and transcript issued by the Registrar of Jammu University.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS7 2025:HHC:23948
15. In response, the petitioner produced before the respondent-university a certificate issued by the Registrar of Jammu University. However, the transcript was not issued .
on the ground that the University had not adopted the procedure to issue transcripts.
16. Thereafter, the Registrar of Jammu University was requested vide letter dated 09.04.2013 to provide copy of notification/regulation where course work was prescribed as mandatory part and parcel of Ph.D. degree in the University of Jammu. The clarification was received from the Registrar, University of Jammu on 13.10.2016.
17. The respondent-university has taken further stand that in the meantime, another amendment was carried in the Service Rules of the respondent-university bringing change in the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor (Basic Science Faculty). As per this amendment, the petitioner had become eligible w.e.f.
04.10.2016.
18. It has also been pointed out by the respondent-
university that the petitioner and another similarly situated incumbent Dr. Nageshwar Singh had approached the ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:23948 erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by their separate Original Applications for the relief of regularization. On abolition of State Administrative .
Tribunal, their Original Applications came to be transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 27 of 2019 in the case of Dr. Nageshwar Singh and CWPOA No. 117 of 2019 in the case of petitioner i.e. the instant petition.
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 services of the petitioner are 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, if so, from which date?
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 ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:23948 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 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."::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS
10 2025:HHC:23948
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).
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 from 1987. He is entitled to get the entire services ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:23948 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 r situate persons have rendered on ad hoc basis for a long period, cannot be permitted to be rendered otiose."
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 any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. To that ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:23948 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:-
r (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."
In a decision rendered on 07.12.2023 in CWPOA No.6956 of 2020 (Rama Nand Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors), ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:23948 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."
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 ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:23948 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 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.::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS
15 2025:HHC:23948
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. As noticed above in detail, the Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University in its report dated 09.01.2013 had found the petitioner fulfilling the qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) effective from 01.01.2012. Obviously, this was the result of amendment caused in the Service Rules of the respondent-
University vide notification dated 15.11.2012 and made effective from 01.01.2012. The only constraint was the procurement of documents from the Registrar of Jammu University. It took more than three years for procurement of documents and finally, those were received in the University on 13.10.2016. In the meanwhile, the Service Rules of the University had again been amended and the petitioner had otherwise been declared eligible.
29. Merely because unduly long time was taken in procurement of documents from University of Jammu, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:23948 recommendation of the Committee dated 09.01.2013 cannot be said to have diluted. From the documents delivered by the Registrar, University of Jammu, the petitioner was .
found eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the University in terms of the amendment carried vide notification dated 15.11.2012. Thus, the petitioner had become eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the University w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and her adhoc service from the said date i.e. 01.01.2012 cannot be disregarded altogether.
30. 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 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 Professor (Physics) w.e.f. 01.01.2012 towards qualifying service for grant of benefit under the Old Pension Scheme or in other words under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondent-university is directed to complete the entire ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:23948 exercise within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment.
31. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, .
so also the pending application(s), if any.
23rd July, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya)
(GR) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2025 21:22:12 :::CIS