Lekh Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8957 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

.

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA

&

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7637 of 2022

Between:-

1. LEKH RAJ, S/O SH. NIMBLU RAM, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BULANG, POST OFFICE SUDHAR, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI,

PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY

SCHOOL SUDHAR, DISTRICT MANDI.

2. RAJIV KUMAR, S/O SH. SUKHDEV SINGH, R/O VILLAGE NANGAL

CHOWK, PO DADASIBA, DISTRICT KANGRA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BEH TAUNTA,

DISTRICT KANGRA.

3. RAVI SINGH, S/O SH. LACHHMAN

SINGH, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DUGHLI, POST OFFICE GOLWAN, TEHSIL LADBHAROL,

DISTRICT MANDI, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL BHARARPAT, DISTRICT MANDI.

4. YASHDEV RAJ, S/O SH. TIANU RAM, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SEHOTI, P AND T KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT

SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KHUNDIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA.

5. MEEN SINGH, S/O SH. RAMSA RAM, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE

.

DASAKNA, POST OFFICE KORAG,

TEHSIL SANGRAH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GOVERNMENT SENIOR

SECONDARY SCHOOL JARWA JUNELI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR.

6. DINESH KUMAR, S/O SH. MEGH SINGH, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHHAT,

TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS. KAPAHRA, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

7. JAGAT PAL, S/O SH. SITA RAM,

AGED 45 YEARS, R/OVILLAGE MAKRI MARKAND, POST OFFICE JUKHALA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS

DPE AT GSSS. SOHARI, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

8. SATISH KUMAR, S/O SH. DAULAT

RAM, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHHUJALA, POST OFFICE BALH

CHURANI, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS.

RISHIKESH, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

9. NEELA DUTTA, S/O SH. DHIRJU RAM, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O VPO KARYALI TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS. PAHAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA.

10. SARITA DEVI, W/O SH. KRIPAL SINGH, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BISHANI, POST OFFICE SOLANG, TEHSIL JUBBAL,

DISTRICT SHIMLA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS. SOLANG, DISTRICT SHIMLA.

11. MAHENDER VERMA, S/O SH. J.L

.

VERMA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O

VILLAGE BAZVI, POST OFFICE KELVI, TEHSIL THEOG, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT JBLMGSSS KUMARSAIN,

DISTRICT SHIMLA.

12. PAWAN KISHORE, S/O SH. KISHORE LAL, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAROG, POST OFFICE SHIWAN, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT

SHIMLA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS SHIWAN, DISTRICT SHIMLA. r

13. KALZANG CHUNDUI, S/O SH. SONAM CHHOPAL, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O

VILLAGE GATEY, POST OFFICE KEE GOMPA, TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL SPITI, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS KIBBER, DISTRICT

LAHAUL SPITI.

14. NAVANG LOTE, S/O SH. TANDUP LAMA, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O

VILLAGE KAZA TEHSIL SPITI, DISTRICT LAHAUL SPITI, PRESENTLY

POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS RANGRIK, DISTRICT LAHAUL SPITI

15. RAJEEV KUMAR, S/O SH. KATHU

RAM, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O VPO ARHAL, TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT SHIMLA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE AT GSSS BALSA, DISTRICT SHIMLA.

......PETITIONERS

(BY MR ONKAR JAIRATH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL

.

PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA-171001

...... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. ASHWANI K. SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) _________________________________________________

This Petition is coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:

r ORDER

Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s): -

"A. That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ order or direction be issued to respondents directing them to regularize the services of the petitioners on and w.e.f. 01.04.2018 or 01.10.2018 i.e.

when they completed three years service on contract

basis, as the case may be, in terms of notification dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure P-5) with all consequential

benefits in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.-342 of 2021, titled as Yashwant Singh and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. B. That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction be issued to respondents to release all financial benefits such as pay, annual increment etc. w.e.f. 01.04.2018 or 01.10.2018 after having regularized their services in terms of

notification dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure P-5) alongwith interest @ 9% P.A."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

.

petitioners were initially appointed on PTA basis in the year 2006-

2007. Thereafter, vide Policy decision dated 16th August, 2013, the

State of Himachal Pradesh has decided to bring the services of the

petitioners on contract basis, w.e.f. January, 2015. The petitioners

were entitled for regularization of their services on completion of three

years contractual service as per regularization policy.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

case of the petitioners is duly covered by the decision given by this

Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, titled Yashwant Singh and others

vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, alongwith connected

matters, decided on 31.8.2022.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has not

controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioners.

5. Operative part of the decision dated 31.8.2022, passed in

CWP No.342 of 2021, reads as under:-

"19. With due deference to the judgments relied upon by the respondents, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down therein will not serve the cause of respondents for the reason firstly that, as held above, it was not a case of fixation of cut-off date for the entire

class, secondly that the above referred judgments were passed in their own facts and lastly the only caveat generated is that the court should not normally

.

interfere with the fixation of cut-off date by the

executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary or

the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result or it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical. We have no hesitation to hold

that in the facts of instant case the impugned action of respondents is blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. In R L. Marwaha v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 31, it has

been held that fixing of a date for grant of benefit, must

have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The respondents, as noticed above, at one stage had themselves supported the cause of petitioners for

granting them permanency of job on the premise of financial compulsions faced by it. They preferred contract employments or employments under special

policies at initial stage than the recruitments on regular

basis for the same reason of financial constraints. Once the courts upheld the contentions of

respondents, they cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of petitioners by creating fictional separate class of employees. Noticeably, the respondents have not declared any object for creating such imaginary classification and hence it is difficult nay impossible to find necessary nexus between the intelligible differentia and the object sought to be achieved.

20. It is also not a case where the respondents have not come out with reasons in support of its actions and financial constraint is not one of the mentioned

.

reasons. Other reasons have already been held by us

to be not qualifying the benchmark of reasonable classification and hence have been adjudged to be

discriminatory and arbitrary.

21. Lastly another futile attempt has been made on behalf of respondents by contending that some of the

PTA-GIA teachers were taken on contract and some were left out, therefore, they being homogeneous class cannot be differentiated. According to respondents the

grant of claimed benefit of regularisation to petitioners

will discriminate the PTA-GIA teachers whose services were not taken on contract. Again, we do not find any reason to subscribe to the view expounded by

respondents. Petitioners are seeking the parity with other contract employees of the State Government on the premise of having formed the same class with

them, whereas the rights, if any, of those who have not

yet been taken on contract is not the subject matter of these petitions. Petitioners were taken on contract

when they qualified the criteria of having served as PTA-GIA teachers for seven years. Petitioners cannot be compared with those who had not fulfilled the requisite criteria or were not taken on contract for any other reason.

22. In view of above discussion, the petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to regularise the

petitioners w.e.f. the due date i.e. 1.4.2018. Needless to say that the consequential benefits shall follow. The petitions are accordingly disposed of so also the

.

miscellaneous pending applications(s), if any."

6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of the

decision given by this Court in Yashwant Singh's case (supra).

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

                         r            to                        ( Sabina )
                                                                  Judge


                                                            ( Sushil Kukreja)
                                                                 Judge



    November 2, 2022
         (Ravinder)