Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sita Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 August, 2016
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 :-
Bhola @ Paras Ram vs State Of H.P on 18 February, 2009
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 :-
Ramesh Chand vs State Of H.P. & Others on 31 May, 2016
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:
Usha Devi & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 April, 2017
titled Dr. Asha Devi and others vs. State of H.P. and
others, in which it has been held as under:
Ravi Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 31 July, 2015
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."
Raja Nand Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 12 February, 2021
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
.
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
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)
.
State Of H.P. And Others vs Dechan Palmo R on 6 July, 2015
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.
1