IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.10 of 2026 Decided on : 02.07.2026 Desh Raj ...Appellant Versus State of HP and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate Genera. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration is sought to the order of the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 5675 of 2019, titled Desh Raj vs. State of H.P. and others, passed on 23.12.2022, wherein the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the benefit of service rendered on an ad hoc basis from 12.03.1981 to 31.05.1996 for the purpose of pension and increments, along with arrears and due and admissible interest, was not liable to be granted. 2. The reasonings of the learned Single Judge was that the initial appointment of the petitioner was as a JBT Teacher for 89 days, as per Annexure A-1 and he was thereafter appointed to the post of Shastri Teacher in the Education Department in the year 1996, and it 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- is not a case where his services were regularized. Rather, he participated in a separate selection process undertaken by the concerned department and was offered appointment, which had nothing to do with his earlier appointment. It was also recorded that he was not serving as a JBT Teacher but had a right to be selected as a Shastri Teacher through the selection process undertaken by the concerned Department. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. Since the writ petition was received on transfer from the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the original pleadings have been perused. The specific plea taken was that after appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis as a JBT Teacher on 12th March, 1981, his services had been regularized on 31st May, 1996 as a Shastri Teacher, and he continued in service. Resultantly, the benefits of ad hoc services were sought. 4. The specific stand taken by the State in the reply was that the services of the petitioner were never regularized. Rather, the applicant was given a fresh appointment to the post of Shastri Teacher on a batch-wise basis by the District Education Officer on 31st May, 1996 and he had joined, as such, on 6th June, 1996. 5. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled Sita Ram vs. State of H.P., dated on 15th July, 2010, which, according to the State, stood distinguished and was not applicable to the present case. Similarly, reliance placed by the -3- petitioner regarding the entitlement as per the judgment in Paras Ram's case, HLJ 2009 (887) H.P., was also distinguished by the State. 6. Apparently, no replication was filed, nor did the petitioner choose to place on record his appointment letter, which would have depicted the nature of his fresh appointment, despite the specific stand taken by the State. Having failed to do so, the petitioner has failed to rebut and controvert the stand taken by the State that it was not a case of regularization but a case of fresh appointment. Having accepted the same, we are of the considered opinion that the claim for the benefits of the ad hoc service cannot be granted to the petitioner-appellant, as it was a case of fresh appointment, and nothing has been placed on record to show that under which rule such claim would be claimed. 7. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 2nd July, 2026 (Tarun/Mamta)