The Court held that where an employee has served on contract basis on different posts and has been regularized on some other post, his ad-hoc/tenure period shall be counted only for the purpose of pension. Whereas, an employee, appointed on contract basis, is appointed on regular basis on the same post, without interruption, his contract service has to be counted for the purpose of annual increment as well as pensionary benefits.
IBEX NEWS,shimla.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held that State must behave like a Model Employer, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard. The Court further held that the extension of service benefits to one kind of temporary appointment is equally applicable to similar temporary appointment with different nomenclature.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, passed this order on a petition seeking direction to the respondents to the extent of benefits of contract service of petitioner.
One of the petitioners had initially served as JBT, on contract basis and later appointed on regular basis as Shastri. The second petitioner was also appointed as JBT, on contract basis and later regularized on the same post, without interruption following to his contract appointment. Thus the claim of petitioner No.1 is slightly different from that of petitioner No. 2.
The Court held that where an employee has served on contract basis on different posts and has been regularized on some other post, his ad-hoc/tenure period shall be counted only for the purpose of pension. Whereas, an employee, appointed on contract basis, is appointed on regular basis on the same post, without interruption, his contract service has to be counted for the purpose of annual increment as well as pensionary benefits.
However, the Court found that despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases the State keeps on to formulate, adopt and practise exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate benefits of the employees. The State tries to deprive the employee of the legitimate benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue with practice of temporary/ad-hoc appointments. The Court observed that the appointment of Voluntary Teachers, ad-hoc Teachers, Vidya Upasaks, Contract Teachers, PARA Teachers, PAT, PTA and SMC Teachers are examples of clever phraseology devised by State to overcome directions of the Courts in order to avoid permanent appointments by appointing ad-hoc/Temporary Teachers and depriving them of service benefits available to regular employees.
The Court has ordered to extend the actual consequential financial benefits to the petitioner three years prior to filing of petition and the benefits beyond three years prior to filing of the petition shall be extended on notional basis.