Judgment : Ranjan Sharma, J. Original petitioner-Neelam Rani [since deceased] now represented by her husband Sh. Rajinder Singh Rana and other legal heirs], filed a CWP No. 1205 of 2013 and upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to Tribunal; and upon its abolition the same has now been re-transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 2083 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s): “(i). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authority to grant the benefit of vacation salary for the period the present petitioner had worked as a JBT on contract. (ii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of revision of pay scales and revision of admissible allowances during the period the present petitioner had worked as a JBT on contract. (iii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of the contractual service rendered as a JBT for the purpose of pension, other benefits etc.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the Original Petitioner-Neelam Rani is that the she is physically handicapped as per the Disability Certificate dated 03.06.2000 [Annexure P-1]. Despite having undergone Kidney Transplantation in 1995 as per [Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-4], Original Petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Teacher [JBT on contract basis] on 15.03.1997 [Annexure P-5], which was modified, leading to her joining as JBT on 18.03.1997 [Annexure P-6]. Petitioner filed an Original Application No. 1020 of 2000 on 03.08.2000, which was disposed of by State Administrative Tribunal apprehending her replacement by a regular incumbent but petitioner continued in service as JBT on contract basis till her appointment as a Regular Trained Teacher [Arts] on 05.09.2001. In this backdrop, the Original petitioner-Neelam Rani, filed the instant petition, with the prayers for releasing the vacation salary and for counting contractual service towards regular service rendered as TGT [Arts] 05.09.2001 onwards. Notably, the Original Petitioner-Neelam Rani, died during service on 20.08.2021 [Annexure A-1 enclosed with CMP.M No. 989 of 2022]. After her death, the substituted legal heirs i.e. the husband of the petitioner had sought the same relief which had accrued in favour of her late wife Neelam Rani, as aforesaid, with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 25.03.2013, the State Authorities were directed to file Reply. No Reply was filed by the State Authorities. 3(i). STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 25.03.2013, the State Authorities were directed to file Reply. No Reply was filed by the State Authorities. 3(i). Upon transfer of matter to State Administrative Tribunal and its listing on 04.01.2019, the State Authorities were again directed to file the reply, but in vain. The matter was again listed on 03.08.2022, before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, when, while deciding the applications for bringing on record the legal heirs, the State Authorities, were further granted time to file the Reply with a default clause that, in case, of non filing of Reply the right to file Reply shall stand closed. Despite opportunity, no reply was filed by the State Authorities, leading to the closure of the right to file the Reply in aforesaid terms. Upon listing of the matter on 19.11.2025 and on the persuasive request made by Learned State Counsel, matter was adjourned, so as to enable the Counsel for the parties to have Instructions in the matter. Upon taking up of the case today, no Instructions have been furnished to this Court by the official respondents. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy which is no longer res-integra, this Court proceeds to dispose of the instant petition, at this stage, and that too without reply, which stands already closed, as referred to above. 4. Heard, Mr. Nitin Thakur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State. ANALYSIS: 5. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record the first claim of the petitioner for vacation salary for the contractual period stands released and therefore, the same has become infructuous and the second prayer, for counting the contractual service as qualifying service with regular service for pension deserves to be allowed for the following reasons: VACATION SALARY RELEASED: 5(i). First prayer of the petitioner in Para 7(i) for grant of vacation salary is no longer res-integra. The entitlement of contractual employee for vacation salary, stands settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , CWP No.415 of 2000, decided on 01.09.2008. First prayer of the petitioner in Para 7(i) for grant of vacation salary is no longer res-integra. The entitlement of contractual employee for vacation salary, stands settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , CWP No.415 of 2000, decided on 01.09.2008. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “The contention of the State that the employees’ appointed on contract basis are lower in status to the ad hoc employees and therefore, cannot be granted salary during the vacations is totally ill founded. In fact, a contractual employee has been appointed after following some procedure even though the procedure may not be in accordance with rules. His status is better than that of an ad hoc employee who may be appointed without following any procedure whatsoever. The apex Court in 1985 (4) SCC 43 , Rattan Lal versus State of Haryana, has clearly held that the persons appointed on ad hoc basis are entitled to salary for the vacations and the State being a model employer cannot follow invidious method of making public appointments from the first day of the academic term and terminate the appointment on the last date of the academic term. The teachers were appointed on contract basis have worked for a period of more than 2 to 3 years and cannot be deprived of the benefit of salary for the vacation period.” Per contra, Learned State Counsel has placed reliance upon an the Instructions dated 21.05.2019 [already on record] to assert that Original Petitioners-Neelam Rani had served as JBT Teacher on contract w.e.f. 18.03.1997 to 03.09.2001 before her joining as TGT [Arts] on regular basis. The aforesaid Instructions indicate that the benefit of vacation salary amounting to Rs.93,035/- [Rupees Ninety Three Thousand and Thirty Five] already stands disbursed to the original petitioner by the Principal GSSS Baddi, on 31.03.2017 and on 08.07.2017. The Instructions dated 21.05.2019 aforesaid have not been disputed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner also. However, Learned Counsel submits that substituted petitioner, i.e. the husband of original petitioner, as prayed, is permitted to make a fresh representation, for surviving grievances, if any, regarding any unpaid part of vacation salary for contractual period which is still due. The Instructions dated 21.05.2019 aforesaid have not been disputed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner also. However, Learned Counsel submits that substituted petitioner, i.e. the husband of original petitioner, as prayed, is permitted to make a fresh representation, for surviving grievances, if any, regarding any unpaid part of vacation salary for contractual period which is still due. In this background, the first claim for salary for vacation period during contractual service needs no further adjudication, on merits, except with the liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents which shall be examined hereinafter and decided within a period of six weeks from receipt of the representation. COUNTING OF CONTRACTUAL SERVICE FOR PENSION: 5(ii). Now coming to second claim of the petitioner for counting of contractual service rendered as JBT from 18.03.1993 to 03.09.2010, which was followed by regular service rendered as TGT from 05.09.2001 till death of original petitioner-Neelam Rani during service on 20.08.2021 [Annexure A-1, with CMP.M No.989 of 2022], in view of Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC Online SC 1272. While dealing with a similar plea, for counting of contractual service followed by regular service for pension, the Division Bench of this Court has entitled the Government Servant for counting contractual service with regular service for pension, in Shiv Sharan Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No.2045 of 2016, decided on 7th May, 2025, wherein it has been held as under: 11(v). Further, in terms of Rule 13 read with Rule 17 of CCS [Pension]Rules, service rendered on contract basis in a pensionable establishment, which is followed by substantive service rendered on the same or another post is countable as qualifying service for pension then, based on the entire qualifying service the petitioner is entitled for pension, subject to retaining the contributory provident fund or by opting to refund monetary benefits received which accrued from contributory provident fund or to forego the same, in case, no CPF benefit was received and then to count the contractual service for pension, in terms of the mandate of Rule 17 of the CCS [Pension]Rules, supra. 11(vi). 11(vi). The issue as to whether the contractual service was countable as qualifying service for pension upon regularization on same or other post of a person on superannuation became the subject matter of in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Sheela Devi, 2023SCC OnLine SC 1272 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed that past service rendered as contractual employee is followed by service rendered on same or another post in a substantive capacity, in a pensionable establishment is to be treated as qualifying service by exercising an option, if any, as may be prescribed by the State Authorities, for purposes of extending benefit of pension, in the following terms:- “9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules. However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the pension rules: “Save as otherwise provided in these rules”. If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account. 10. So far as the other arguments with respect to the voluntariness when the employees enters into contractual services is concerned, this Court is unpersuaded by the submission because those terms were applicable as long as the employees remained on contract. However, his or her status ceased upon regularization. 11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions are issued:— (i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who had been regularized after spells of contractual employment) regardless of the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight weeks from today. (ii) After receiving the options within the time indicated in the notice, the concerned employee(s) who exercise the relevant options should be notified about the amounts they would have to remit in case any amount towards contribution is required, clearly. (iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight weeks from the last date of receiving options. (iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire process should be completed within four months and all orders fixing pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be issued.” 11(vii). A similar issue as to whether contractual service upon regularization on the same or other post was to be counted for pension under Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, was re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Jaya Prakash and Others Versus Union of India and Others,2025 SCC OnLine SC 973, in the following terms :- “3. The short facts that are necessary are as follows. The appellants were appointed as Data Entry Operators under the Plan Scheme called ‘Rationalization of Data Processing Facilities’ on temporary and contractual basis between 1996 and 1999. Pursuant to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal 3 dated 01.04.2013 the respondents issued an Office Memorandum dated 5.1.2015 to regularise the appellants’ service from a prospective date, i.e., from the date of issuance of this order. Pursuantly, the appellants were appointed ona regular basis by order dated 01.04.2015, w.e.f. 05.01.2015. The appellants preferred an Original Application before the CAT, with a prayer to regularize their services from the dateof initial appointment or at least fromthe date of completing 10 years of service, and to protect their pay and to grant seniority, service benefits and pension by counting their period of contractual service. The CAT allowed the same by order dated 19.01.2016 and directed as follows: “31. Therefore, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we order as follows: 1. The pay and other allowances drawn by the applicants prior to their appointment on regular basis on 1.4.2015 shall be protected and they shall be allowed the pay being drawn by them immediately prior to their regularisation as their basic pay as on 1.4.2015. Their annual increment shall be determined accordingly. 2. The pay and other allowances drawn by the applicants prior to their appointment on regular basis on 1.4.2015 shall be protected and they shall be allowed the pay being drawn by them immediately prior to their regularisation as their basic pay as on 1.4.2015. Their annual increment shall be determined accordingly. 2. The applicants from whose salary, the GPF and other contributions made right from the date of their appointment on contract basis shall be entitled to come under the old pension scheme and the entire period of service right from the date of initial appointment on contract basis shall be counted towards pensionary benefits. 3. For the purpose of seniority, ACP and other service benefits etc., the regular service of the applicants shall be reckoned from the date of completion of 10 years of service from their initial appointments on contract basis. 32. The Respondents are directed to fix the salary of the applicants and grant the consequential benefits in terms of the above direction within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. The respondents challenged the above order by way of a writ petition, which was partly allowed by the impugned order. The High Court set aside the CAT’s directions to the extent of counting the period of contractual service for grant of seniority, service benefits, and pension on the ground that the initial appointment was on a contractual basis and not pursuant to the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission. It held that the appellants will be entitled to regularisation and its consequential benefits only from 01.04.2015. However, the Court upheld the CAT’s direction regarding protection of pay while fixing the pay scale. 9. In light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra),the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularization in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17. 9. In light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra),the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularization in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17. In line with the directions issued in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted hereinabove, we direct the respondent Union of India to take immediate steps and indicate the mode and manner for the appellants to exercise the option provided under Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as to notify the amounts that the appellants would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the Rules.” 11(viii). A similar claim came up for adjudication before this Court in CWPOA No. 5507 of 2020 Oma Wati and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 21.08.2023, upholding the claim for pension by counting the service rendered on a post uninterruptedly, which was followed by substantive-regular service rendered on another post as qualifying service for pension, as under: 2. Petitioner No.1 Oma Wati was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Junior Basis Teacher (JBT) on 24.7.1998 andserved as such till 24.8.2000. Thereafter, she was appointed as Shastri on regular basis and she is serving as such since 25.8.2000. 8. Despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases that State must behave like a Model Employer, State, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard, successively keeps on to formulate, adopt and practise exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate rights of the employees for which they are otherwise entitled. On intervention of the Courts directing the State to extend such benefits like pay scale, increment, leave and counting of service etc., State every time tries to deprive the employee from such benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue with practice of temporary/ad-hoc appointments. 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 depriving them of service benefits available to regular employees. 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 depriving them of service benefits available to regular employees. When Courts upheld the entitlement of ad-hoc employees for service benefits, State came with Scheme for appointment of Voluntary Teachers. Again, on intervention of the Court, State continued changing the name of Policy but for appointment on exploitative terms. Therefore, we are of the opinion thatall these terms are similar temporary appointments irrespective of their nomenclature. Therefore, verdict of the Court regarding extension of service benefits with respect to one kind of temporary appointment is equally applicable to similar temporary appointment with different nomenclature. 9. The claims of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgments in Sheela Devi, Jagdish Chand as well as Youdhishther Kumar Sharma, referred supra. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the present cases also, subject to clarification that petitioner No.1 shall be entitled for counting of contract service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits, whereas, benefits to the husband of petitioner No2 shall be extended by counting his contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits. 10. Present petition was filed on 30.10.2018. The actual consequential financial benefits shall, however be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. Due and admissible benefits be released to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. 11(ix). A coordinate Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA 7216 of 2020, in Re: Kewal Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 10.07.2024 allowed the pension by counting the contractual service rendered as JBT on contract basis which was followed by service rendered on substantive-regular basis as drawing teacher till retirement as qualifying service for pension on the basis of Rule 17 and the mandate of law in the case of Sheela Devi [supra] in the following terms:- 2. Petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Junior Basis Teacher (JBT) on 24.09.1996 and served as such till 13.7.2003. Thereafter, he was appointed as Drawing Teacher on regular basisand he served as such since 14.7.2003 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.05.2018. Petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Junior Basis Teacher (JBT) on 24.09.1996 and served as such till 13.7.2003. Thereafter, he was appointed as Drawing Teacher on regular basisand he served as such since 14.7.2003 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.05.2018. 14 The claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments in Sheela Devi, Jagdish Chand as well as Youdhishther Kumar Sharma, cases referred supra. Therefore, ratio of the aforesaid judgments as well as reasons assigned therein for extending the benefits of contract service to the employee shall mutatis mutandis applicable to the present case also, and petitioner shall be entitled for counting of contract service for the purpose of all pensionary benefits. 15 Present petition was filed on 10.7.2019. The actual consequential financial benefits shall, however, be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. Due and admissible benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.” 6. Based on factual matrix and the material on record and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Sheela Devi and S.D. Jayaprakash [supra], and the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Oma Wati and Shiv Saran Sharma (supra); the uninterrupted contractual service rendered by the petitioner on the post of JBT [from 18.03.1997 to 03.09.2001, i.e. 4 years 5 months and 17 days] followed by substantive-regular service rendered on another post of Trained Graduate Teacher [Arts] on regular basis, from 05.09.2001 till her death on 20.08.2021 i.e. 19 years 11 months 16 days] is to be treated as qualifying service countable for pension and based on this, once the total service works out to be more than 24 years 5 month and 3 days therefore, the action of State Authorities in giving pension/family pension for regular service of 19 years and 9 months rendered as TGT has resulted in obliterating the 4 years and 5 months of contractual service, which qualifies for pension is uncalled for and unsustainable. Accordingly, the substituted writ petitioner, being the husband of deceased-original petitioner is held entitled for revised family pension Rules in terms of Rule 54(2) read with Rule 54 (14) (b) of CCS (Pension) from the date of death of the Original Petitioner-Neelam Rani w.e.f. 20.08.2021, after counting of contractual service towards regular service for family pension w.e.f. 20.08.2021, in the aforesaid terms. DIRECTIONS: 7. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded herein above, the instant petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i). As prayed, present petitioners are permitted to make a representation ventilating their claim for vacation salary, if any, to the respondents within six weeks from today; with directions to the Respondent No.2 [Now Director of School Education Himachal Pradesh] to consider and examine the matter and to pass appropriate orders and release admissible unpaid and due vacation salary, if any; (ii). Original Petitioner-Neelam Rani is held entitled for counting of contractual service rendered as JBT on contract basis from 18.03.1997 to 03.09.2001 to be counted as qualifying service with regular service rendered as TGT [Arts] w.e.f. 05.09.2001 till her death on 20.08.2021, as per the Rule 17 of the CCS Pension Rules and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheela Devi [supra], reiterated in S.D. Jayaprakash, followed by this Court in Oma Wati and Shiv Saran Sharma [supra]; (iii). Upon counting of contractual service towards regular service, the State Authorities shall extend the benefit of revised pension/family pension to the present petitioner [being legal heirs] w.e.f. 20.08.2021 with all consequential benefits; (v). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.