Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kavita Thakur Wife Of Vivek vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ... on 12 October, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7138 of 2022
Between:-
1. KAVITA THAKUR WIFE OF VIVEK
SINGH THAKUR RESIDENT OF
HOUSE NO. 896 KRISHNA NIVAS
WARD NO. 6 TOWN & POST
OFFICE CHOWARI, TEHSIL
BHATIYAT DISTRICT CHAMBA
H.P. (PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER MATHEMATICS IN
GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY
SCHOOL HOBAR, TEHSIL
CHOWARI DISTRICT CHAMBA
H.P.) 176302.
2. KARTAR CHAND S/O DUNI
CHAND VILLAGE DHAMNADI
POST OFFICE RAIPUR TEHSIL
BHATIYAT DISTRICT CHAMBA,
H.P. (PRESENTLY WORKING TGT
FILED TODAMT. MIDDLE SCHOOL
SADAL UNDER COMPLEX GSSS
RAIPUR DISTRICT CHAMBA H.P.)
PIN CODE 176302
3. MONIKA THAKUR WIFE OF
VINOD KUMAR THAKUR,
::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2022 20:03:05 :::CIS
2
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 896
KRISHNA NIVAS WARD NO.6
POST OFFICE CHOWARI, TEHSIL
.
BHATIYAT, DISTRICT CHAMBA
H.P. 176302 PRESENTLY
WORKING TGT MEDICAL IN
GOVERNMENT SENIOR
SECONDARY SCHOOL GAGAHAR
TEHSIL BHATIYAT DISTRICT
CHAMBA,H.P.
4. VINOD KUMAR, S/O DIWAN
CHAND, RESIDENT OF HOUSE
NO. 896, KRISHNA NIVAS WARD
NO.6 CHOWARI, POST OFFICE
AND TEHSIL CHOWARI, DISTRICT
CHAMBA, H.P. (PRESENTLY
WORKING TGT NM IN GOVT.
MIDDLE SCHOOL SADAL UNDER
COMPLEX GSSS RAIPUR
DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.)
5. SMT. SANGEETA GUPTA, WIFE
OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, VILLAGE
AND POST OFFICE HOBAR
TEHSIL BHATIYAT, DISTRICT
CHAMBA, HP. (PRESENTLY
WORKING AS TGT MEDICAL IN
GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY
SCHOOL HOBAR, TEHSIL
CHOWARI DISTRICT CHAMBA,
H.P.)
....PETITIONERS
(BY MR. VIVEK SINGH THAKUR,
ADVOCATE)
AND
::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2022 20:03:05 :::CIS
3
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY
EDUCATION GOVT. OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
AT SHIMLA.
2. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA AT SHIMLA.
3. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, GOVT. OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AT SHIMLA.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ASHWANI SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL
rADVOCATE
GENERAL)
This petition 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: -
"(I). That respondents may kindly be directed to regularize
the service of the petitioner since 1.04.2018 with all
consequential benefits in terms of notification No. PER
(AP)C-(2)-I/2018 government of Himachal Pradesh
Department of personnel (AP-III) dated 11.05.2018
Annexure P-7 and further in view of judgment dated
31.08.2022 passed in case of similar situated CWP No.
1608 of 2022 Annexure P-12"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the petitioners were initially appointed on PTA basis in the year
.
2006. 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 as 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
discriminatory and arbitrary. In R L. Marwaha v. Union
of India (1987) 4 SCC 31, it has been held that fixing
blatantly
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
cannot
PTA-GIA teachers were taken on contract and some
were left out, therefore, they being homogeneous
class
r 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
October 12, 2022
(reena)
