Prem Singh vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5186 HP

.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA ON THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION)

No.220 of 2019 Between:

ALPANA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SH.

PREM SINGH,

RESIDENT OF VPO SAMOT, TEHSIL SIHUNTA, DISTT.

CHAMBA, H.P.

....PETITIONER.

(BY. MR. KULBHUSHAN KHAJURIA, ADVOCATE )

AND

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH

SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.

    2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER





    EDUCATION,   EDUCATION
    DEPARTMENT,    SHIMLA­
    171001.
                                                     ....RESPONDENTS.

(BY. MR. SUMESH RAJ, MR. SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERA7L, WITH AMIT KUMAR DHUMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

Whether approved for reporting?1 No

.

This petition coming on for order stage this day, the Court passed the

following: JUDGMENT

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present

petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a lecturer in

the subject of Hindi, in Government Senior Secondary School Tundi,

2.

r to District Chamba, H.P. on contract basis on 03.08.1998. Her services

were regularized w.e.f. 12.01.2009.

The grievance of the petitioner is that persons similarly

situated as her, i.e. lecturer appointed on contract basis, stand

regularized by the State in terms of the policy formulated by it

immediately post completion of eight years of service on contract

basis, whereas services of the petitioner stand regularized after

completion of ten years. This act of the respondents as per the

petitioner is arbitrary as similarly situated persons have been

treated with a different yardstick. Though, there are other reliefs also

which have been prayed for by the petitioner in these proceedings,

however, learned counsel has restricted the claim of the petitioner to

the said relief only, i.e. issuance of a mandamus to the respondent

to order regularization of the services of the petitioner after

completion of eight years of service.

3. The Court stands informed by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the issue is no more res integra, as Hon'ble Division

.

Bench of this Court in CWP No.1853 of 2009­D, titled as Arpana Bali

Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on

10.04.2013, petitioner wherein was similarly situated as the

petitioner, has issued direction to the respondents to regularize the

services of the Ms. Arpana Bali on notional basis after completion of

eight years of service w.e.f. 01.01.2007, with further direction that

due and admissible monetary benefits be restricted from the date

when she actually joined pursuant to the subsequent order of

regularization passed in her favour. A copy of the judgment so

passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in CWP No.1853 of 2009­D, titled

as Arpana Bali Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others,

decided on 10.04.2013 has been made available to the Court,

perusal whereof demonstrates that therein also the petitioner was

initially appointed on contract basis as a Lecturer of Music and

thereafter, her services were regularized after a period of ten years

which stood assailed by her by way of said petition. Her Writ Petition

was allowed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the following

terms:­

"18. The upshot of the above discussion would be that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized as Lecturer Music (Vocal) w.e.f. 1.1.2007 instead of 31.12.2008, however, only on notional basis from the said date and entitled to the actual financial benefits from the date she has joined as Lecturer Music (Vocal) on regular basis

.

pursuant to impugned order Annexure P­13. The

impugned order is hereby ordered to be modified, accordingly.

19. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to order the regularization of the petitioner on notional basis 2.3.f. 1.1.2007, within a period of two

months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. However, the due and admissible monitory benefits be restricted from

the date of she had joined duties pursuant to the office

order dated 2.3.2009, Annexure P­13."

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly

submitted that there is in fact no difference between the case of

Ms. Arpana Bali's (supra) and in the case of the present petitioner.

5. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and

it is directed that the service of the petitioner be regularized on

notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.2007, on or before 31.08.2022. Due and

admissible monitory benefits are restricted as from 01.01.2009.

6. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending

miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

July 01, 2022 (Rishi)