Rajesh Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8959 HP

                                   1




    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.7638 of 2022

           Between:-





    1.   RAJESH THAKUR, S/O SH. SHANKAR
         SINGH, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
         LANGRI, POST OFFICE BALH
         CHURAHI, TEH. GHUMARWIN, DISTT.

         BILASPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS
         ASSISTANT PROFESSOR HINDI AT

         GOVT. COLLEGE BILASPUR, DISTT.
         BILASPUR.
    2. VIJAY LUXMI, W/O SH. HARISH


         CHAUHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O
         VILLAGE SHANTHA, POST OFFICE
         DEWAT, TEH. CHOPAL, DISTT.
         SHIMLA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS




         ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ENGLISH AT
         GOVT. L.B.S. COLLEGE SARASWATI





         NAGAR, DISTT. SHIMLA.
    3. SUSHIL KUMAR, S/O SH. NARAIN
         SINGH AGED 41 YEARS R/O VILLAGE





         ROPARU, POST OFFICE BASONA, TEH.
         LADBHAROL, DISTT. MANDI,
         PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT
         PROFESSOR PHYSICS AT PSR GOVT.
         COLLEGE BAIJNATH, DISTT. KANGRA.
    4. RAJGIR SINGH, S/O SH. KASHMIR
         SINGH, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
         NONU, POST OFFICE ROPRI, TEH.
         SARKAGAHT, DISTT. MANDI, R/O
         VILLAGE LANGRI, POST OFFICE BALH




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:35:52 :::CIS
                               2




      CHURAHI, TEH. GHUMARWIN, DISTT.
      BILASPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS
      ASSISTANT PROFESSOR HISTORY
      AT PSR GOVT. COLLEGE BAIJNATH,




                                                     .
      DISTT. KANGRA.





    5. BHAVNA KUMARI, W/O SH. SANJEEV
      KUMAR AGED 45 YEARS R/O VILLAGE
      JHAJHWAN, POST OFFICE RAJA KA





      TELAB, TEH. FATEHPUR, DISTT.
      KANGRA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS
      ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ENGLISH AT
      GDC SUGH BHATOLI, DISTT. KANGRA.
    6. POOJA DEWAN, W/O RAJNISH





      DEWAN, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O
      VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BAGLI,
      TEH. DHARAMSHALA, DISTT.
      KANGRA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS

      ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT GOVT.

      COLLEGE DHARAMSHALA, DISTT.
      KANGRA.
    7. MONIKA BHARDWAJ,W/O SH. AKSHAY
      BHARDWAJ, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O


      WARD NO. 6 NEAR POLICE STATION,
      TEH. NAGROTA BHAGWAN,
      DISTT.KANGRA, PRESENTLY POSTED
      AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT ATAL




      BIHARI VAJPAY COLLEGE NAURA,
      DISTT. KANGRA.





    8. MONIKA MAKKAR, W/O SH. PRADEEP
      MAKKAR, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O





      ABHIPUNJ BALAJI VIHAR KANGRA,
      PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT
      PROFESSOR PSYCHOLOGY AT GOVT.
      COLLEGE DHARAMSHALA, DISTT.
      KANGRA.
    9. SHARMILA SHARMA, W/O SH. SASHI
      KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O HOUSE
      NO. 3, NEAR LIC OFFICE COMPLEX
      PALAMPUR, DISTT. KANGRA,
      PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:35:52 :::CIS
                                          3




         PROFESSOR COMMERCIAL ART IN
         GOVT. COLLEGE DHARAMSHALA,
         DISTT. KANGRA.
                                                            ......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:

                                   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.

( Sabina )

Judge

( Sushil Kukreja) Judge November 2, 2022 (Ravinder)