[2025:HHC:46544] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No. 866 of 2019 Decided on: 22.11.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Shamsher Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal and Ms. Vandana Kumari, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Shamsher Singh, initially filed CWP No.11698 of 2011 before this Court and upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal the matter was transferred to the Tribunal; and after its abolition, the matter stood re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No 866 of 2019, prayer for the following reliefs:- “15(i) That respondents may very kindly be directed to count ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary with the respondents department with effect from 8.2.1985 to 1991 for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 [2025:HHC:46544] purpose of annual increment as well as entire adhoc service (8.2.1985 to 29.11.1996) for the purpose of promotion, to the next higher post i.e. Panchayat Auditor /Panchayat Inspector/ Progress Assistant in the office of Block Development Officer with the respondents Department. The respondents may further be directed to count the ad hoc period service rendered period for the purpose of pensionary benefit and consequential benefits be released in his favour; 15(ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to release the increments to the petitioner under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary under Panchayat Samiti, Rait, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, on 29.05.1984. The services of the Panchayat Secretaries were taken over by the Government on 15.06.1984 and for giving effect to this, the services of the petitioner and others were terminated by giving one month’s notice on 14.01.1985. It is averred that petitioner was re-appointed as Panchayat Secretary on adhoc basis vide order dated 08.02.1985 and thereafter the petitioner served as Panchayat Secretary on adhoc basis without break but his services were not regularized. Feeling aggrieve, the petitioner filed a CWP (T) No.11564 of 2008, which was decided 3 [2025:HHC:46544] on 03.12.2010 [Annexure P-3] and in compliance to the judgment passed by this Court on 03.12.2010, Director Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, issued an order on 22.02.2011 [Annexure P-4], regularizing the petitioner as a Panchayat Secretary w.e.f. 30.11.1996 in time scale of Rs 3120-5160 plus admissible allowances. After regularization, the petitioner had filed the instant petition on 23.12.2011, with the prayer that the continuous and uninterrupted adhoc service rendered by him from the date of his re-appointment on 08.02.1985 till his regularization on 30.11.1996 [as per order dated 22.02.2011, Annexure P-4] may be counted towards retiral benefits, including Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment ; with further prayer that such adhoc service followed by regularization may be counted for the purposes of granting Assured Career Progress Scheme [ACP Scheme] benefits to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 02.01.2012, the State Authorities have filed 4 [2025:HHC:46544] Reply-Affidavit dated 05.03.2012, of Deputy Secretary [Rural Development], to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was initially engaged as Panchayat Secretary [adhoc] on 29.05.1984 by Panchayat Samiti Rait but the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 14.01.1985 by giving him one month’s notice/pay advance. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was re-appointed on adhoc basis as a Panchayat Secretary on 08.02.1985. Reply-Affidavit further indicates in Para-5 that the services rendered by petitioner from 29.05.1984 till re-appointment on 08.02.1985 was not continuous but was a service with break and the same cannot be counted for retiral benefits in terms of the Central Civil Services [Pension] Rules. Reply-Affidavit indicates that as per the Government instructions, the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 0.11.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160. So far as the claim for giving the benefit of adhoc service towards ACP Scheme is concerned, the Reply-Affidavit stated 5 [2025:HHC:46544] that ACP is to be granted by taking into account regular service and since the petitioner has rendered regular service w.e.f. 30.11.1996 and had completed 8 years regular service on 30.11.2004, therefore, the ACP benefit, as due stands released to the petitioner. In this backdrop, the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER WAY OF REJOINDER: 4. Petitioner had filed a Rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, with the prayer, that the petitioner is not seeking benefit of adhoc period rendered with breaks from 29.05.1984 till 07.02.1985 for retiral benefits but was seeking benefit of continuous and uninterrupted adhoc service rendered from 08.02.1985 followed by regularization on 30.11.1996 as qualifying service for retiral benefits on superannuation on 30.04.2018, under the CCS [Pension] Rules. It was stated that once the adhoc service was countable for promotion, then, such service deserves to be counted for purposes of ACP also. SUR-REBUTTAL BY RESPONDENTS-STATE: 6 [2025:HHC:46544] 5. Director Rural Development to Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed a Sur-Rejoinder on 21.10.2024, admitting that the benefit of the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner from 08.02.1985 till regularization on 30.11.1996 cannot be counted for increments. So far as the claim for counting the adhoc service for ACP benefits is concerned, the stand of the State Authorities is that ACP benefits due upon completion of 4-9-14 years of regular service stands granted to the petitioner. It is averred that the Instructions issued by State Government on 28.11.1998, relate to countable the adhoc service for reckoning eligibility for promotion and not for Assured Career Progression benefits. 6. Heard, Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents-State. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED: 7. Before proceeding to analyze the claim and the rival contentions, it is necessary to have a recap of the Statutory Rules i.e. Central Civil Services [Pension] Rules, 1972 as applicable to the 7 [2025:HHC:46544] employees of the Respondent-State spelling out the eventualities in which, temporary service was liable to be counted or treated as qualifying service for pension and gratuity. The provisions of Rule 3(q) and Rule 13 and 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 read as under: Rule 3. Definitions: (1)(a) to (p) …not relevant... (q). Qualifying Service' means service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules. (r) to (s) …not relevant... Rule 13 and 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules: 13. Commencement of qualifying service: Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity : Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post : Provided further that:- 8 [2025:HHC:46544] (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group `D' service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th April, 1950, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose, and (b). in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity (c). the provisions of clause (b) shall not be applicable in the cases of counting of military service for civil pension under Rule 19. 14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies: (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify, unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression "Service" means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that 9 [2025:HHC:46544] Government. (3) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the State Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, if any, followed without interruption by substantive appointment, or the continuous service rendered under that Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, as the case may be, shall qualify : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to any such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply. 7(ii). For appreciating the claim as to whether service rendered by Government Servant on a post, in a time scale is countable as duty for the purpose of increment(s), it is necessary to have a look at Fundamental Rule 9(6) and Rule 26 (a) which reads:- Fundamental Rule 9(6): F.R. 9(6) : Duty (a) Duty includes – (i) service as probationer or apprentice provided that such service is followed by confirmation; and 10 [2025:HHC:46544] (ii) joining time (b) A Government servant may be treated as on duty- (i) during a course of instruction or training in India, or (ii) in the case of a student, stipendiary or otherwise, who is entitled to be appointed to the service of Government on passing through a course of training at a University, College or School in India, during the interval between the satisfactory completion of the course and his assumption of duties. Fundamental Rule 26: F.R.26. Fundamental Rule 26: F.R.26. The following provisions prescribe the conditions on which service counts for increments in a time-scale:- (a) All duty in a post on a time-scale counts for increments in that time-scale: Provided that for the purpose of arriving at the date of the next increment in that time-scale, the total of all such periods as do not count for increment in that time-scale, shall be added to the normal date of increment. (b) to (e) not relevant. ANALYSIS: 11 [2025:HHC:46544] 8. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record and the Statutory Rules as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the first claim of the petitioner for treating the continuous and uninterrupted adhoc service rendered by him from 08.02.1985 till substantive appointment-regularization on 30.11.1996 and thereafter till superannuation on 30.04.2018 deserves to be counted as qualifying service for the purposes of retiral benefits, like Pension, Gratuity etc; and the second claim of the petitioner for counting the aforesaid adhoc service for granting Assured Career Progression [ACP] benefits is disallowed, for following reasons:- CLAIM FOR COUNTING TEMPORARY-ADHOC SERVICE FOLLOWED BY REGULARIZATION AS QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PENSION : 8(i). Facts reveal that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on 29.05.1984 and he served as such with break in service till January 1985. Upon re-appointment as a Panchayat Secretary on adhoc basis on 08.02.1985, petitioner has rendered continuous and uninterrupted adhoc 12 [2025:HHC:46544] service which was followed by regularization w.e.f. 30.11.1996 in terms of the orders dated 22.02.2011 [Annexure P-4] after judicial intervention in CWP(T) No 11564 of 2008 dated 03.12.2010. Indisputably, petitioner has rendered continuous and interrupted adhoc service on the post of Panchayat Secretary from 08.02.1985 till 29.11.1996 and regular service thereafter from 30.11.1996 till superannuation on 30.04.2018. CONTINUOUS AND UNINTERRUPTED TEMPORARY- ADHOC SERVICE FOLLOWED BY SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENT COUNTS AS QUALKITYING SERVICE FOR PENSION: 8(i-a). Pertinently, the petitioner has served as Panchayat Secretary in temporary capacity, which includes the service rendered on adhoc basis, on a sanctioned post from 08.02.1985 and such adhoc service was continuous and uninterrupted and was followed by substantive appointment or regularization on the same post and that being so, the aforesaid temporary-adhoc service is liable to be treated as qualifying service for pension in terms of Rules 13 and 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. EVENTUALITIES WHEN TEMPORARY SERVICE 13 [2025:HHC:46544] NOT COUNTABLE AS QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PENSION: 8(ii). In the backdrop of Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the service rendered by a government servant on adhoc [in a temporary capacity] is not to be counted as qualifying service for pension, in case, the adhoc-temporary service is not continuous or is interrupted service or such adhoc-temporary service is not rendered on a sanctioned post or such adhoc-temporary service is not followed by substantive appointment or regularization in the same service or post or service. 8(ii-a). Rule 13 of the CCS [Pension] Rules 1972 further mandates that the temporary service is not countable as qualifying service for pension, in case, such temporary service falls in any of the three exceptional eventualities stipulated in the proviso below Rule 13 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, i.e. firstly, where such service was rendered before attaining the age of 16 years or a Group-D post or a post on which lien of another person was suspended; or secondly, in case, where, such temporary service 14 [2025:HHC:46544] was rendered in an officiating service before attaining the age of 18 years; or thirdly, in case, where a person had rendered military service before re- employment in a civil post-service and has not refunded the military pension-gratuity as per Rule 19 (1) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. 8(ii-b). Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules further stipulates that an adhoc-temporary service was not to be counted as qualifying service in two additional eventualities, i.e. firstly, where such service was not rendered by a government servant in a pensionable establishment; or secondly, where duties and pay during the period of temporary or officiating service was not regulated by the Government. In the teeth of statutory rules continuous and uninterrupted service rendered in a temporary capacity [includes adhoc service] on a post, which is followed by substantive appointment-regularization is liable to be counted and treated as qualifying service for reckoning retiral benefits, when, “pension” includes “gratuity” and gratuity is admissible on the basis of qualifying service as per Rule 3(o) 15 [2025:HHC:46544] and Rule 50 of the CCS (Pension). Conversely, in case, the temporary service falls in any of the “Exclusion Clauses” outlined in Rule 13 and 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules then, in such eventualities, temporary-adhoc service even though followed by regular-substantive appointment or regularization is not treated as qualifying service for pension and gratuity. SERVICE COUNTABLE FOR INCREMENTS COUNTS FOR PENSION: 8(iii). Reply-Affidavit reveal that the petitioner has rendered continuous and uninterrupted adhoc service as Panchayat Secretary from 08.02.1985 till regularization on 30.11.1996. A harmonious reading of Fundamental Rule 9 (6) and FR 26 (a) mandate that the service rendered by a government servant on a post, in a time scale, which is followed by substantive appointment or regularization is liable to be treated as period spent on duty and such service counts for increments. Further, any service which counts for increments, in a time scale, is liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for 16 [2025:HHC:46544] pension and gratuity in terms of Rules 13 and 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. MANDATE OF LAW ENTITLING COUNTING OF CONTINUOUS ADHOC SERVICE AS QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PENSION AND GRATUITY: 8(iv). The issue as to whether the continuous and uninterrupted service rendered in a temporary capacity [including adhoc] on a post, in a time scale, which is followed by substantive appointment- regularization on the same or another service or post counts as qualifying service for pension and gratuity has been approved by this Court, in the following judgements. 8(iv-a). While dealing with the issue as to whether the adhoc service followed by regular appointment was to count for increments stands adjudicated by this Court in the backdrop of communication dated 12.09.1997 reiterated on 22.09.1997, mandating that the service rendered in temporary capacity including adhoc tenure upon regular appointment is to be counted for purposes of increments in CWP (T) No. 4357 of 2008, Ms. Thakuri Devi versus State of H.P. & Ors. alongwith connected matters, decided 17 [2025:HHC:46544] on 27.10.2009, upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 9975-9980 /2011, decided on 07.07.2011, in the following terms:- “4. Mr. R.S. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a letter dated 27th September, 1977, issued by the Director of Education, relevant portion of which reads just follows: "I am directed to refer your letter NO. EDN-H(2)B (2)6/00-III dated the 12thSeptember, 1977 on the above cited subject and to say that there is a break in adhoc service and regular appointment, the period of adhoc service will not count towards increment, but if the adhoc appointment is followed by immediate regular appointment and there is no break in service the adhoc service will be counted towards increment in the normal course.” 6. This also clearly shows that both the tenure and ad hoc appointment are being treated similarly by the State Government. It decided to take into consideration the uninterrupted adhoc/tenure period of service followed by regular appointment for the grant of annual increment. Reference may also be made in this regard to a letter dated 20thDecember, 1989 sent by the Director of Education, in which the terms adhoc and tenure services have been used alternatively to each other, relevant portion of which reads as below:- “The benefit of ad hoc/tenure services without break and followed by regular appointment can count towards increments and such cases may be sent to this directorate for necessary action." 7. It is thus clear that the Government was not making difference between adhoc and 18 [2025:HHC:46544] tenure appointment. Both were being treated identically. Even otherwise, as per the instructions laid down in the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, adhoc service has been defined as follows:- "Any appointment which is made without following the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules or the prescribed procedure is to be termed as "adhoc appointment". 9. Reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court in Paras Ram vs. State of J.P. and another, CWP (T) No. 7712 of 2008, decided on 19.5.2009, wherein in the case of an adhoc employee this court has directed that the adhoc period of service be counted for the purpose of grant of annual increments. 10. Keeping in view the letters of the Director of Education, referred to above and the judgment of this Court in CWP (T) No.7712 of 2008, I feel that the writ petitions must be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. The respondents to take into consideration the un-interrupted tenure services rendered by the petitioners prior to their regularization for the purpose of calculation of grant of annual increments. The arrear due and payable to the petitioners be paid to them within three months from today, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date the amounts fall due till payment thereof….” 8(iv-b). While dealing with a similar issue in Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (H) 887, this Court held that the continuous and uninterrupted adhoc service followed by regular service on the same or another post is to 19 [2025:HHC:46544] be counted for increments, in following terms:- “The petitioner has passed diploma of Drawing Teacher. He was appointed on adhoc basis against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the year 1987. The State Government has taken a conscious decision on 31.8.1995 to regularize those C&V Teacher, who have put in ten years of service as a junior Basic Trained Teacher in the Education Department. These teachers were to be issued special Junior Basic Trained Teacher's certificates. In sequel to instructions dated 31.8.1995, the petitioner as regularized in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2130 on 13.11.1997 4 In the present case the petitioner has uninterruptedly worked against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher on adhoc basis and has been awarded special certificate. He was regularized on 13.11.1997. In view of Annexure PB, the adhoc 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 counted which has rendered on adhoc basis with effect from 1987 for the purpose 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 adhoc services is to be granted for the purpose of annual increments. This notification will cover all the cases where the persons had worked on adhoc 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. 20 [2025:HHC:46544] Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the adhoc services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization on 13.11.1997 for the purpose of annual increments. 8(iv-c). The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, mandated for counting of adhoc service followed by regular service for purpose of increments and pension but by disentitling a government servant for benefits of adhoc service seniority. 8(iv-d). While dealing with a similar fact situation in the case of Ravi Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No 4550 of 2010 decided on 16.12.2010, alongwith connected matters, this Court has mandated that continuous and uninterrupted temporary service rendered on a post, which is followed by substantive appointment on the same or another post, deserves to be counted as qualifying service for pension. 8(iv-e). The Division Bench of this Court in Youdhishther Kumar Sharma versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No 10529 of 2011 decided on 07.12.2011, has mandated that 21 [2025:HHC:46544] continuous and uninterrupted adhoc, tenure, temporary service followed by substantive appointment or regular service was countable as qualifying service for pension etc. in the following terms: 1. The petitioner claims benefit of adhoc and tenure service rendered by him. It is seen that some period is as J.B.T teacher and some period is as Shastri. As far as J.B.T. is concerned, that period will count only for the purpose of pension as per Rule 13 of the Pension Rules. As far as the adhoc/tenure period in the post of Shastri concerned, in case the same is followed by regular appointment, that period shall be counted for the purpose of increments and pension, in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State of H.P…”. 8(iv-f). While dealing with the issue as to whether continuous and uninterrupted service rendered in a temporary service, though given the nomenclature of adhoc, tenure or contract service, rendered on a post which was followed by regularization is to be treated as qualifying service for pension etc. stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheela Devi versus State of HP and others, CWPOA No.195 of 2019, ILR 22 [2025:HHC:46544] 2019 (VI) HP 1 713, in the following terms: 12. It is by now settled law that the work- charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits and even adhoc service in terms of Paras Ram’s case (supra) followed by regular service in the same post has to be counted for the purpose of increments and in turn for pension as held by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled Sita Ram’s case (supra), can the benefit be denied to the employees appointed on contract basis followed by regular appointment. 20. Once that be so, obviously no discrimination can be made qua the employees, who rendered service prior to regularization in the capacity of contractual employees and were regularized only because they had put in the requisite number of years of service on contractual basis like their counterparts who had rendered service in the capacity of work charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment, of course, for that matter even on adhoc basis. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner on contract prior to his regularization shall be treated as qualifying service for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to last three years only before the date of filing of the petition i.e. 3.12.2018. The admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months from today. 23 [2025:HHC:46544] The aforesaid view remained undisturbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while adjudicating SLP (C) No. 10399 of 2020, State of Himachal & anr versus Sheela Devi (and connected petitions) decided on 07.08.2023. Mere nomenclature being adhoc or tenure or contract cannot form the basis for carving out an artificial or superfluous distinction just to deprive an employee of the statutory rights and legal entitlements for counting the continuous and uninterrupted temporary service followed by regular service as qualifying service for pension and gratuity under the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. BENEFIT OF TEMPORARY SERVICE HAVING HALL MARK OF REGULAR SERVICE COUNTS FOR PENSION: 8(v). Since the service rendered in temporary capacity, on a post, from 08.02.1985 till substantive appointment-regularization w.e.f. 0.11.1996 for more than 10 years had hallmark of a regular service in terms of work, job, duties and functions then, mere status or nomenclature cannot form basis for denying benefits and social protections, including 24 [2025:HHC:46544] pensionary benefits. Deprivation of social protections as guaranteed by statutory rules and constitutional ethos in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CONCLUSION: 9. The intent and object of Rules 13 and 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules read with Rule 9 (6) and FR 26 (a) is that if a government servant has rendered temporary service which includes adhoc service and the aforesaid service was continuous and interrupted service, which was rendered on a post, in a time scale, then, such service counts as qualifying service for pension and gratuity. The duty rendered on a post, in a time-scale, for which pay was regulated by the Government is countable for increments. In case, the temporary or adhoc service rendered by a government servant does not fall in any of the “Exclusion Clauses” in Rules 13 and 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules then, such service was reckonable as qualifying service for pension and gratuity. In the teeth of statutory rules, once service rendered in a temporary capacity, 25 [2025:HHC:46544] on a post, was countable as qualifying service for pension and gratuity as per Rules 13 and 14 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, then, the term “temporary capacity” cannot be given a restrictive meaning, by carving out a superfluous and artificial distinction on the basis of mere “nomenclature or designation or status” of a government servant [being adhoc or tenure or contract etc.] so as to obliterate the service rendered or to curtail the rights and legal entitlements for getting the social protections like pension and gratuity, despite having rendered more than 10 continuous years of such service from 08.02.1985 till his regularization on 30.11.1996 which was followed by regular service till retirement on 30.04.2018. Action of the State Authorities in depriving the petitioner of the social protection is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The service rendered by Government Servant in temporary capacity [including adhoc] on a post in a time scale counts for increments in terms of Fundamental Rule 9 (6) and Fundamental Rule 26(a). Moreover, any service which 26 [2025:HHC:46544] counts for duty in a time scale certainly counts for increments and resultantly, any service which counts for increments is liable to be treated as qualifying service for pension and gratuity. For the aforesaid reasons, entire service rendered by the petitioner as a Panchayat Secretary (adhoc) from 8.02.1985 till his superannuation on 30.04.2018 deserves to be treated as qualifying service for granting social protections of Pension and Gratuity under the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972 and is held entitled for the resultant enhanced-revised retiral benefits for the entire service w.e.f. 01.05.2018, with all consequential benefits. CLAIM FOR ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION BENEFITS FOR ADHOC SERVICE NOT TENABLE: 10. So far as such claim of the petitioner for counting adhoc service towards ACP is concerned this Court declines the prayer of the petitioner, for the following reasons: 10(i). The Old ACP Scheme dated 15.12.1998 provides for giving benefits of proficiency increments and higher scales (as the case may be) to a 27 [2025:HHC:46544] government servant on completion of 8-16-24-32 years of regular service w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Likewise, New ACP Scheme notified on 09.08.2012 as applicable from 27.08.2009, provides for granting proficiency step up or giving next grade pay to on completion of 4-9-14 years of regular service. The benefit of ACP is usually allowed to those regular government servants who do not have promotional avenues and stagnate for long time on the post held by them. The objective of Assured Career Progression Scheme is to ensure financial upgradation, enhancements / promotions to a regular employee in his entire service career. 10(ii). Non-admissibility of ACP benefits on the basis of adhoc service has been outlined by this Court in CWPOA No. 7531 of 2019, titled as Madan Lal and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another decided on 30.12.2022, in the following terms:- 5(v). The next relief prayed for by the petitioners is for counting the adhoc service rendered by them for the purpose of allowing Assured Career Progression (ACP). No basis for claiming this relief 28 [2025:HHC:46544] has been put forth. The only argument raised is that this benefit was granted by the respondents to a couple of employees, hence, on the same analogy, the benefit of ACP by counting the adhoc service should also be allowed to the petitioners. The respondents have pleaded that the benefit of ACP was wrongly passed on to a couple of employees, however, the mistake has since long been rectified and the benefit of ACP erroneously released in favour of some of the employees now stands adjusted. It is well settled that negative parity cannot be claimed. Ground of discrimination cannot be urged citing wrong orders passed in favour of others. No other reason has been put forth by the petitioners for releasing them the benefit of ACP. Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme has not been placed on record. Benefit of ACP is usually allowed to those regular government servants who do not have promotion avenues and stagnate for long time on the post held by them. The objective of an Assured Career Progression Scheme is to ensure financial upgradation, enhancements / promotions to a regular employee in his entire service career. Petitioners have neither placed on record the Assured Career Progression Scheme nor any of its clauses are under challenge. By nature of applicability and the object of ACP, it cannot be granted for the adhoc service rendered by the petitioners. The ACP Scheme(s) providing for counting regular service for ACP benefits has not been 29 [2025:HHC:46544] assailed by the petitioner in the instant proceedings. Not laying a challenge to ACP Scheme(s) disentitles the petitioner for benefit of ACP on the basis of adhoc service. The Instructions dated 28.11.2018 [Annexure P-5] relates to a different field altogether. Even Reply-Affidavit and Sur-Rejoinder indicate that the petitioner has already been given the benefit of ACP Scheme on completion of 4-9-14 years of regular service. Nothing has been placed on record to indicate or rebut the stand of State Authorities. The claim of petitioner for counting adhoc service for granting the benefits under ACP Scheme cannot be acceded to dehors the ACP Scheme whereby, the ACP benefits are admissible to regular employees for the “regular service” rendered by an employee. In this backdrop, the claim is untenable and is disallowed. 11. No other points pressed/argued. DIRECTIONS: 12. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, instant petition is partly allowed, in the following terms: 30 [2025:HHC:46544] (i). State Authorities shall count continuous and uninterrupted adhoc service rendered as Panchayat Secretary from 08.02.1985 till substantive appointment-regularization on 30.11.1996 as qualifying service with regular service rendered from 30.11.1996 till his superannuation on 30.04.2018, for pension and gratuity; (ii). As a sequel to direction (i) above, the State Authorities shall revise the retiral benefits, like Pension and Gratuity of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2018 ; (iii). State Authorities shall release the revised pension and gratuity to the petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits with all admissible arrears, within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified / downloaded copy of this judgement; (iv). Claim of the petitioner for counting adhoc service for Assured Career Progression benefits is declined ; and (v). Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge November 22, 2025 [Bhardwaj]