1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against judgment dated 13.05.2024, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.1129 of 2021, titled as Prakash Chand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, to a limited extent whereby claim of the petitioners, on regularization, for grant of annual increment for services rendered by them on contractual basis has been rejected by referring judgment passed by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi, SLP (c) No.10399 of 2020, with observation that in para-9 of the said SLP, the Supreme Court has categorically held that it is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account.
2. Another limb of impugned judgment granting benefits to the petitioners-appellants of their contractual service for pensionary benefits by directing to treat the same as qualified service for the purpose of pension has not been assailed either by the appellants or by the respondent-State.
3. In CWPOA (CWP-T) No. 7712 of 208, titled as Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 19.5.2009, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (H) 887, it was held that ad hoc service followed by regular service in the same post could be counted for the purpose of increments.
4. Approving the aforesaid judgment in Paras Ram's case, a Division Bench of this High Court in LPA No.36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 15.07.2010, had observed that appellant in Sita Ram's case was entitled for counting of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension, but he was not entitled for counting the said ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority.
5. It is also apt to record that judgments in Paras Ram's and Sita Ram's cases have attained finality.
6. In CWP No.4550 of 2010, titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 16.12.2010 along with connected matters, in case of tenure appointees, direction was given to grant annual increment during period of tenure services and to count the said period for the purpose of pension like ad hoc appointees in the Education Department. However, issue related to contract Teachers was kept open to be decided by the Authority.
7. In CWP No.5400 of 2014, titled as Veena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another, decided on 21.11.2014, contract service followed by regular appointment without interruption was directed to be considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
8. Special Leave to Appeal CC No(s) 18898 of 2015, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another vs. Veena Devi, preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.10.2015.
9. A Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No.8953 of 2013, titled as Joga Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.06.2015, had held that services rendered by the petitioners therein, who were appointed Vidya Upasaks on honorarium basis which was followed by regular appointment as Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs), were entitled for counting of their service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments.
10. After dismissal of SLP(C) No.183 of 2016, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Joga Singh and others, Review Petition (Civil) No.274 of 2017 filed in the said SLP (C) No.183 of 2016, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.03.2017.
11. In similar case CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 26.12.2019, after taking into consideration Rule 17 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCS Pension Rules'), and other pronouncements of this High Court as well as Supreme Court, Division Bench of this Court had directed to count period of contract service followed by regular service as qualifying service for granting pension.
12. CWP No.2411 of 2019, titled as Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 10.01.2020, alongwith connected matters, by a Division Bench of this High Court. In these matters petitioners, who were not JBT but having qualification as TGT, O.T., Shastri etc., were appointed against sanctioned vacant post(s) of JBT as Vidya Upasak and were regularized as JBTs in the year 2007 after awarding them special JBT certificates. In these matters, it was directed to count contract service followed by regularization against the post of JBT towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules as well as for annual increment, but restricting actual financial benefits to three years prior to filing of writ petitions.
13. It is also an admitted fact that SLP (Civil) No.10399 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Sheela Devi, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 with direction that past service of contractual employee on regularization is to be counted for the purpose of pension and thus judgment in Sheela Devi's case, referred supra, has attained finality.
14. Undisputedly, SLP(C) Nos. 8012-8013 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jagdish Chand, has also been dismissed on 7.8.2023 and, thus, judgment in Jagdish Chand's case has also attained finality.
15. Vide order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 40148 of 2023 preferred by the State in SLP filed in Jagdish Chand's case, which were 'dismissed as withdrawn', were restored and thereafter the same were disposed in terms of Civil Appeal No. 5148 of 2023, i.e. Sheela Devi's case. Referring this order, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that in Sheela Devi's case benefits of counting contract service for annual increment has not been granted and, therefore, disposal of SLP in Jagdish Chand's case in same terms, petitioners are not entitled, on their regularisation, for annual increments for their contract period of service.
16. Mr. Anup Rattan learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended that in Sheela Devi's case benefits of counting contract service for annual increment has not been granted and, therefore, has supported the impugned judgment.
17. In Sheela Devi's case (supra), the High Court had directed to count the contract service for the purpose of qualifying service towards pension. However, the Apex Court, in its order dated 7.8.2023 has directed the respondents/State to count the contract service for the purpose of pension. As a matter of fact, counting of contract service for the purpose of 'qualifying service towards pension' and 'counting of contract service for the purpose of pension' means one and the same thing. In both directions, there is mandate to consider the contract service for determining pension.
18. On dismissal of SLP in Sheela Devi's case, the State did not contest the SLP filed in Jagdish Chand's case and had preferred its disposal, in terms of judgment passed in Sheela Devi's case.
19. From aforesaid facts, it is apparent that on adjudication of the issue with respect to counting of contract service for pensionary benefits by the Supreme Court, the State did not prefer adjudication of the issue of entitlement for annual increments for the contract service period, after regularization, but preferred disposal of the SLP filed in Jagdish Chand's case, in terms of Sheela Devi's case.
20. In Jagdish Chand's case a Division Bench of this High Court has directed that contract period of service, on regularisation, is to be counted for gratuity, pensionary benefits and annual increments. Withdrawal or disposal of SLP, filed in Jagdish Chand's case, in terms of Sheela Devi's case, depicts that issue related to the annual increment was not agitated by the State and such withdrawal or disposal of SLP without agitating the issue which was not in consideration in Sheela Devi's case, means acceptance of verdict of the High Court with respect to direction to grant annual increment in Jagdish Chand's case. Even otherwise direction to count contract period for pensionary benefits covers grant of annual increment for the said period.
21. As discussed supra, counting of contract service for pensionary benefits would entail grant of annual increments for the said period. Therefore, for judgment of Supreme Court in Sheela Devi's case, dismissing the SLP, and also for withdrawal of SLP by the State in Jagdish Chand's case, contractual period of service of an employee, followed by regularization on the same post, is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments.
22. Following the aforesaid judgments in Sheela Devi's and Jagdish Chand's cases, this Court in CWPOA No.5507 of 2020, titled as Oma Wati and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, has directed to extend benefit of annual increments and counting of period of contract service followed by regular appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, by observing as under:-
"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 adhoc/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 that all 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."
23. Taking into consideration aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this High Court, vide judgment dated 29.8.2023, has decided CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, titled as Sunil Dutt & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters, wherein petitioners have been held entitled for counting of contract service, followed by regularization on the same post without interruption, for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments with following observations:-
"17. ... ... ... ...Needless to say that for counting the service to extend the benefit thereof for pension, annual increment for the relevant period is an essential factor required to be considered for calculating pension. Observations by the Division Bench of this Court in this regard in CWP No.850 of 2010, titled Paras Ram vs. State of HP and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, as also referred in order dated 15.7.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.36 of 2010, titled Sita Ram vs. State of H.P., are relevant wherein it has been stated that service counted for the purpose of annual increment will be counted for pension also. There is direction for counting the contractual service for pension/pensionary benefits. Counting of service for pension includes, counting of length of service for qualifying service for pension, as well as for quantifying the amount of pension payable by calculating it on the basis of basic pay with addition of increment. Therefore, direction to count service for pension also mandates calculation of pension by granting annual increment for relevant period either actual or notional basis."
24. Undoubtedly, pension is calculated on the basis of last pay drawn by the employee and last pay of the employee depends upon the Basic Pay earned by the employee on the basis of pay scale as well as annual increments earned by him during his entire service and, therefore, for counting service for pensionary benefits or as a qualifying service towards pension, the annual increments for the said service period, are inevitable to be taken into consideration. It is relevant to record here that it was not the case of the respondent-State that during contract period, services rendered by the appellants were not satisfactory, rather contrary to that considering their services satisfactory their services were regularized by the State-Department.
25. In Sheela Devi's case, prayer made by the petitioner was only with respect to count past service of her husband, on contract basis, for the purpose of pension. However, it is apt to record that when past contract service is considered valid for counting for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the same period is also to be taken into consideration by granting annual increment because for calculation of pensionary benefits, last pay drawn, determined on the basis of annual increment drawn, is a decisive factor and last pay drawn also depends on the annual increments earned by the employee. Therefore, for calculating and determining pensionary benefits, annual increments and length of service are major relevant factors.
26. Entitlement or dis-entitlement for annual increments, for contract period service followed by regular appointment on the same post, without interruption, was not a issue and thus was not agitated and decided in Sheela Devi's case specifically and separately. Though, as discussed supra, at the time of taking into consideration contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, annual increments for the said service are also to be taken into consideration. However, even otherwise, settled position in Paras Ram's, Sita Ram's, Joga Singh's and Jagdish Chand's cases, mandating entitlement of an employee for annual increments for the contract period of service followed by regular appointment on the same post, without interruption, cannot be unsettled on the basis of a judgment in which the said issue has not been discussed and decided, particularly when judgment in Joga Singh's and Jagdish Chand's cases have attained finality after dismissal of SLPs preferred by the State in those cases.
27. Judgment in Sheela Devi's case, which declared that contract service period is to be counted for the purpose of pension, cannot be taken a judgment as a denial of annual increments for the said period.
28. As evident from judgment in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the moot question adjudicated and decided by the Court was that whether the services of an employee appointed on contractual basis, in temporary capacity, can be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension after regularization of his services. The Division Bench has answered this issue by holding that service rendered by an employee on contract, prior to his regularization, shall be treated as qualifying service for grant of pension. Issue with respect to grant or non- grant of annual increments for the contract service period, after regularization, was neither in issue specifically nor discussed.
29. It is also relevant to record here that Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 07.12.2011 passed in CWP No.10529 of 2011, titled as Youdhishther Kumar Sharma vs. The State of H.P. and another, has decided the issue of entitlement of counting contract service in those cases wherein employees had served on contract/temporary basis on different posts but had been regularized or appointed as regular on some other posts. In such a situation, the employee was held entitled for counting of his ad hoc/tenure/temporary service only for the purpose of pension, but not for annual increment. In present case, the facts are entirely different because temporary/contract appointment of petitioner is followed by regularization on the same post without interruption and, therefore, this judgment is not applicable in present case.
30. Judgment dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 188 of 2020 titled as Dr. Bharat Tomar & Another Vs. State of H.P. & others, referred by learned counsel for the petitioners is also relevant to substantiate the claim of petitioners.
31. Though judgment in CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, along with connected matters, has been considered by learned Single Judge in Para-3 of the impugned judgment, but by taking into consideration only part of the relief granted to the petitioners therein, regarding counting of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. However, perhaps due to oversight, observations that counting of contract service period for pensionary benefits also includes grant of increment for the said period and direction to grant annual increments for contract service period, on regularization, has been overlooked, which has resulted into passing a judgment by learned Single Judge contrary to the judgment passed by a Division Bench.
32. A Division Bench of this High Court in CWPOA No.5363 of 2020, titled as Ishwar Verma & others v. H.P. University & others, has observed as under:
"15. State, including its functionaries, has to make appointment by following procedure prescribed under Recruitment and Promotion Rules/Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. However, sometimes, State or its functionaries resort to make appointment without following process prescribed under Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e. dehors of Service Rules but following some procedure prescribed in some valid Policy formulated and adopted by it.
16. Sometimes, not only dehors of Recruitment and Promotion Rules but also without framing or following any valid policy, appointments are made. Such appointment made in last category are not protected by law and/or Courts being backdoor entry.
17. In first two categories, sometimes initial appointments are made on temporary or contract basis and such services are regularized later on.
18. It is now settled that temporary/contract appointee of first category on regularization shall be entitled for counting of temporary/contractual service for all service benefits since their initial date of appointment including seniority, annual increments and pensionary benefits, whereas such appointee of second category, on regularization shall be entitled for annual increment and pensionary benefits etc. but not for seniority."
33. Similar observation has been made by Division Bench in judgments passed in LPA No.207 of 2023, titled as Subodh Kumar & others v. Rakesh Kumar & others.
34. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring judgment dated 28.4.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 114 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. & Another Vs. Uma Dutt Sharma, has submitted that in view of judgment in CWP No.4550 of 2010, titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & another, contract service rendered by employee followed by regular appointment shall not count for the purpose of increment and pension.
35. The aforesaid plea of learned Additional Advocate General is not sustainable because in Ravi Kumar's case (CWP No. 4550 of 2010), it was not the findings returned by the Division Bench that contract service shall not count for the purpose of increment and pension, rather the said Writ Petition was disposed of in following manner:-
"13. In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:-
(1) The tenure appointees in the education department if appointed without break in regular service shall be granted increments during the tenure period and the said service will count for pension, as in the case of ad hoc appointees in the education department.
(2) As far as contract teachers are concerned, the 1st respondent may consider their case for increments or for counting the service as qualifying service for pension, having regard to all relevant factors, some of which are referred to above. It will be open to the petitioners to jointly also file appropriate representations. Orders in that regard will be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment/ representations."
36. From the operative portion of Ravi Kumar's case, it is evident that claim of counting of service of contract teachers on regularisation, for the purpose of pension and increments was kept open by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit appropriate representation with respect to their such claim, and respondent-State was directed to consider the case of contract teachers for increment or for counting service as qualifying service for pension, having regard to all relevant factors, some of which were recorded in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, plea that in Ravi Kumar's case, it was held that contract service shall not count for the purpose of increment and pension, is misconceived being contrary to facts.
37. Though in Uma Dutt's case, Ravi Kumar's judgment has been referred in a manner, so as to depict that it was held in Ravi Kumar's case that contract service shall not count for the purpose of increment and pension, but on perusal of judgment in Ravi Kumar's case it is evident that such observation is an error apparent on the face of it being contrary to the facts. In Uma Dutt's case, Division Bench was dealing with a case of tenure appointee, wherein vide judgment dated 7.7.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 2599 of 2008, learned Single Judge had observed that there was no difference between ad hoc, tenure and contract declaring all of them the same, whereas the said issue was not a point in issue to be determined in CWP(T) No. 2599 of 2008 as well as LPA No. 114 of 2010. Therefore, such observation made in this regard is not a binding precedent. Even otherwise, the said observation has lost its efficacy and relevancy for subsequent verdict of the Supreme Court in various cases including Joga Singh's, Jagdish Chand and Sheela Devi's cases, whereby judgments passed by this High Court have been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP against judgments, wherein contract appointee, on their regularisation, have been held entitled for counting of their contract service for the purposes of pensionary benefits and annual increments. Thus, plea based on Uma Dutt's case, referring Ravi Kumar's case or otherwise is not sustainable.
38. Learned Advocate General has also canvassed that petitioners had voluntarily entered into the express terms of the contract, and accepting the same, they joined as contract teachers on such terms, and in those terms and conditions, there was no provision for granting annual increment to contract employees like regular employees. Further that services of contract employees are governed by terms of contract and such employee is not entitled to claim anything over and above such terms, and thus, claim of petitioners for annual increment for contract period of service is not sustainable. According to him, petitioners are not entitled for annual increment as is being claimed by them.
39. Aforesaid contention of learned Advocate General, though appears to be attractive, but is misconceived for the reason that in present case, the claim of petitioners for granting them annual increment and pensionary benefits is not that during their contract service they were or are entitled for annual increment. The claim of petitioners for such service benefit is based on the plea that their contract service has been followed by regular service without any interruption on the same post.
40. As provided in Rule 17 of CCS Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and also as has been reiterated and affirmed in the judgments of the High Court as well as of the Supreme Court, contract service followed by regular appointment without interruption is to be counted for pensionary benefits. For that purpose and otherwise also, on such regularization, employee, on regularization, is entitled for annual increment for his contract period of service. The claim for service benefit of annual increment for contract period of service has arisen on/after regularization.
41. It is not a case where petitioners, as a contract employee, are claiming annual increment during their contract period of service over and above the terms and conditions of the contract. They have become entitled for counting of contract period of service for pensionary benefits along with annual increment on their regularization on the same post without any interruption.
42. Referring Rule 2 (g) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, similar plea, on behalf of State, was also raised by learned Advocate General before the Supreme Court in Sheela Devi's case. The same was rejected by the Supreme Court by referring provisions of Rule 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 without observation that where the employees working on contract basis are regularized at a later stage, they are entitled for counting of past service as a contract employee for pensionary benefits.
43. Before regularization, a contract employee cannot claim for providing pensionary benefits or annual increment for and/or during such contract service unless provided in contract. But on regularization such employee is definitely entitled for counting of contract service for service benefits of pension and annual increment in view of various judgments of this High Court as well as Supreme Court and also for discussion in present matter.
44. Contract service of the petitioners was followed by regular service, without interruption, on the same post. Therefore, they are definitely entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits.
45. The issue stands already settled in various judgments, including the cases of Joga Singh and Jagdish Chand cases and other matters, but it has not only been implemented by the State in respect of all similarly situated employees and employees are compelled to prefer identical petitions for getting the benefit of judgments of the Supreme Court, which are judgments in rem and based on policy decisions of the State.
46. Legal principles summed up by the Supreme Court in State of UP v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva, MANU/SC/0948/2014 : 2014:INSC:735 : (2015) 1 SCC 347 are relevant in present matter, which are:
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0891/1997 : 1997:INSC:574 : (1997) 6 SCC 721). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
47. In present cases also, above referred legal principles contained in Paras 22.1 and 22.3 of the judgment in Arvind Kumar Shrivastva's case are applicable, because the issue that contract period of service, followed by regular appointment on the same post without interruption, is to be taken for consideration for annual increments and pensionary benefits, is no longer res integra, rather is well settled, and the State has also implemented it, if not thousand but with respect to hundreds of employees, but despite that all similarly situated employees entitled for the said relief are not being treated in the same manner, due to which Court is being engaged to decide the same issue again and again, leading to wastage of time and energy and the resources.
48. It has been invariably noticed that issues, which stood decided once, are being raised by the State repeatedly again and again causing not only wastage of time and energy of the State, but also of the Court as well as poor litigants. Such an act of the State is contrary to the Litigation Policy adopted by the State.
49. Such practice and conduct on the part of the State, because of wastage of precious time of the Court, leads to delay in dispensation of justice to other litigants whose claims or cases are pending adjudication since long.
50. State is expected not to repeat such practice in the cases, which have already been decided by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court and even implemented by the State.
51. Similar view has been taken by this Division Bench in LPA No. 232 of 2024, titled as Ram Chand & others Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.09.2024, CWPOA No.78 of 2020, titled Mool Raj & others Vs. State of H.P. & others, CWPOA No.6381 of 2019, titled Anil Rana Vs. State of H.P. & others, and CWPOA No.687 of 2020, titled Yash Pal Singh & others Vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 01.10.2024.
52. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3398/2024, titled as State of Rajasthan and ors. V. Gopal Bijhawat, decided on 16.2.2024, had imposed costs on the State for having harassed a poor litigant for having engaged him in protracted litigation denying him fruits of his litigation.
53. In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).30326 of 2023, titled as The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Vithal Rao, decided on 6.9.2023, the Supreme Court had imposed costs and had categorically observed that just because Officers of the State do not have to pay for litigation from their pocket does not mean that they can harass individuals by forcing them into uncalled for litigation.
54. Accordingly, in addition to finding return hereinabove, judgment passed in CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, LPA No. 232 of 2024 and CWPOA No.78 of 2020 along with connected matters, shall also be mutatis mutandis applicable to the present matter also and petitioners shall be entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with all consequential benefits, but restricting actual consequential financial benefits to three years prior to filing of the writ petition.
55. Due and admissible benefits shall be released to the appellants within a period of four months from today. Needless to say that benefits given beyond three years prior to filing of appeals shall be extended to them on notional basis.
56. Present appeal is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
