Dhani Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Anr. CWPOA No. 6387 of 2019 17.09.2026 Present: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Chandel, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. CMP.T. No. 406 of 2026: Instant application is for early hearing, with the prayer that the petitioner is about 71 years of age. In view of the averments made in the application, application for early hearing is allowed. CWPOA No. 6387 of 2019: Heard for some time. Factual matrix is that petitioner had rendered service as Clerk in 95 % Privately Hanged Janta High School, Danoghat, District Solan, from February 1986 to February 2006 and his services were taken over by the State Authorities in terms of Government Policy dated 19.09.2005 [Annexure A-2], by issuing an order on 23.02.2006 [Annexure A-3] and he retired from service on 31.12.2012. 2(i). First grievance is for counting the service rendered as Clerk in Janta High School, Danoghat on contract basis followed by regular service till retirement as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Considering the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, only the service rendered in a “pensionable establishment” counts as qualifying service for pension; and therefore Learned Counsel prays for adjournment, so as to assist this Court as to whether the service rendered on contract in Janta Senior Secondary School, Danoghat was a service rendered in a pensionable establishment or not ? 2(ii). Second, claim is for giving seniority and increments for service rendered in Janta Senior Secondary School, Danoghat. Considering the factual matrix, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for the reason that the government policy dated 19.09.2005 [Annexure A-2], mandated that taking over of services has to be as a fresh incumbent in the minimum pay scale of the respective cadre on a regular basis. Even, the above stipulation contained in the policy dated 19.09.2005 [Annexure A-2] in treating the petitioner to be "fresh incumbent" disentitles the petitioner from claiming seniority and increments for the said period, and this contention of the policy dated 19.09.2005 [Annexure A-2] has not been assailed by the petitioner in instant proceedings. 2(iii). So far as the claim for protection of pay, is concerned though no such claim has been set up, but now it is contended, that other similarly placed persons have been granted benefit of pay protection as well. In these circumstances, hearing is deferred so as to enable Learned Counsel to shall assist this Court, as to whether, the service rendered in Janta Senior Secondary School was a “pensionable establishment” or not and whether benefit of pay protection has been granted to incumbents, who had served in the said school and whose services were taken over in the said school or in any other school in terms of the policy dated 19.09.2005 [Annexure A-2]. List this matter on 29.09.2026. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 17, 2026 (Anita)