Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 7203 OF 2022
Between:-
1. RAMESH KUMAR S/O SH SUNDER
LAL VILLAGE AND P.O. PEHAD,
TEHSIL DHARAMPUR DISTT MANDI
H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING PET
GMS SHIAN U/C GSSS HEUN PEHAD,
DISTT MANDI H.P. AGE ABOUT 39
YEARS.
2. KULDEEP CHAND S/O SH HARI
SINGH VILLAGE LUDHIYANA, P.O.
PEHAD TEHSIL DHARAMPUR DISTT
MANDI H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING
AS LECTURER HINDI AT GSSS HEUN
PEHAD, DISTT MANDI H.P. AGE
ABOUT 51 YEARS.
3. RAVINDER KUMAR S/O SH BHOLA
RAM, VILLAGE LUDHIYANA, P.O.
PEHAD TEHSIL DHARAMPUR DISTT
MANDI H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING
AS TGT ARTS AT GMS SHIAN GSSS
HEUN PEHAD, DISTT MANDI H.P.
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS.
4. DHARAM SINGH S/O SH HUKAM
CHAND, VILLAGE LUDHIYANA,
P.O.PEHAD, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR
DISTT MANDI H.P. PRESENTLY
WORKING AS PET AT GSSS HEUN
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2022 20:04:15 :::CIS
-2-
PEHAD, DISTT MANDI H.P. AGE
ABOUT 47 YEARS
5. CHANCHAL SINGH S/O SH HEM
.
SINGH VILLAGE LUDHIYANA,
P.O.PEHAD TEHSIL DHARAMPUR
DISTT MANDI H.P. PRESENTLY
WORKING AS PET AT GHS BANERDI,
U/C GSSS HEUN PEHAD, DISTT
MANDI H.P. AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS.
6. BANSI LAL S/O SH SHER SINGH
VILLAGE AND P.O. TOURJAJAR,
TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTT MANDI
H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER ENGLISH AT GSSS
CHEUNI, TEHSIL THUNAG DISTT
MANDI H.P. AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS.
7. CHAMAN LAL S/O SH KANHIYA RAM
VILLAGE AND P.O. KHALANOO,
TEHSIL KOTLI DISTT MANDI H.P.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER COMMERCE AT GSSS
KARKOH TEHSIL KOTLI DISTT
MANDI H.P.AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS.
8. RAJENDER KUMAR S/O SH TARA
CHAND VILLAGE BANWAR KALAN
P.O.DHARAMPUR TEHSIL
DHARAMPUR DISTT MANDI H.P.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER GEOGRAPHY AT GSSS
GSSS BARON DISTT MANDI 11.PAGE
ABOUT 47 YEARS.
9. HANS RAJ S/O SH MAGHU RAM
VILLAGE AND PO UPPER
LAMBAGAON TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR
DISTT KANGRA H.P. PRESENTLY
WORKING AS LECT (SN)
MATHEMATICS AT GSSS KAMLAH
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2022 20:04:15 :::CIS
-3-
FORT DISTT MANDI H.P. AGE
ABOUT 47 YEARS.
10. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SH ACHRU RAM
.
VILLAGE AND P.O. KAMLAHFORT
TEHSIL DHARAMPUR DISTT MANDI
H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE
AT GSSS KAMLAH FORT DISTT
MANDI H.P. AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS
11. PAWAN. S/O SH PRABHU RAM,
VILLAGE BREHAL, P.O.
KAMLAHFORT, TEHSIL
DHARAMPUR DISTT MANDI H.P.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER (SN) ENGLISH AT GSSS
MARHI, DISTT MANDI H.P. AGE
ABOUT 41 YEARS
12. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SH CHAUDHARY
RAM VILLAGE SATREHAR P.O. AND
TEHSIL DHARMAPUR DISTT MANDI
H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECT
(SN) ECONOMICS) AT GSSS KAMLAH
FORT DISTT MANDI H.P. AGE
ABOUT 47 YEARS.
13. PARVESH JAMWAL S/O SH
KRISHAN KUMAR, VILLAGE UPPER
SOHAR P.O.AND TEHSIL SANDHOL
DISTT MANDI H.P. PRESENTLY
WORKING AS LECTURER (SN)
HISTORY AT GSSS SARI MOLAG
DISTT KANGRA H.P. AGE ABOUT 43
YEARS
14. BALWANT SINGH S/O SH SHER
SINGH, VILLAGE SALON P.O.MARHI
TEHSIL DHARMAPUR DISTT MANDI
H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS PET
AT GSSS KAMLAH FORT DISTT
MANDI H.P. AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2022 20:04:15 :::CIS
-4-
15. SUMAN KUMARI D/O SH MOHAN
SINGH VILLAGE CHAKYANA,P.O.
KOT, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR DISTT
MANDI H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING
.
AS DRAWING MASTER AT GOVT
HIGH SCHOOL GIUN DISTT MANDI
H.P. AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS.
16. MEENA DEVI, D/O SH LUDER MANI,
VILLAGE BEHAL,P.O.PAIRI, TEHSIL
BALH, DISTT MANDI H.P.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRAWING
MASTER AT GMS SAIN BEHAL U/C
GHS KATHLAG DISTT MANDI H.P.
AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS.
17. SUMAN THAKUR DAUGHTER OF
SHRI
PREM SINGH THAKUR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARLI,
POST OFFICE GHARWASDA, TEHSIL
DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI(HP).
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER HINDI AT GSSS
GHARWASDA, DISTRICT MANDI (HP)
AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS.
18. MANOHAR LAL, SON OF SHRI
ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE KUTBALLA, POST OFFICE
LAMBA GAON, TEHSIL
JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT
KANGRA(HP), PRESENTLY WORKING
AS LECTURER (SM) POLITICAL
SCIENCE AT GSSS DHUPKIARA,
DISTRICT KANGRA (HP). AGE
ABOUT 50 YEARS.
19. CHAMAN LAL SON OF SHRI AMAR
CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
LALNA, POST OFFICE MARHI,
TEHSIL DHARAMPUR DISTRICT
MANDI (HP), PRESENTLY WORKING
AS PET AT GSSS SAMOUR,
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2022 20:04:15 :::CIS
-5-
DISTRICT MANDI (HP). AGE ABOUT
43
20. SANJAY KUMAR THAKUR SON OF
.
SHRI SOHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE MATALAG- FALD, POST
OFFICE MASERAN, TEHSIL
SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI(HP),
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER (PHYSICS) AT GSSS
BAROTI, DISTRICT MANDI (HP). AGE
ABOUT 47 YEARS.
21. SIPAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI SOHAN
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
HARYANAL, POST OFFICE
TANEHAR, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR
DISTRICT MANDI (HP), PRESENTLY
WORKING AS PET AT GSSS
TANEHAR, DISTRICT MANDI (HP).
AGE ABOUT 43.
22. VINOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI DIDO
RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE SARI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI(HP),
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DPE AT
GSSS TANEHAR, DISTRICT
MANDI(HP). AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
23. SURINDER KUMAR SON OF SHRI
ROOP LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BARDANA, POST OFFICE AND
TEHSILDHARAMPUR, DISTRICT
MANDI (HP), PRESENTLY WORKING
AS LECTURER (S/N) ECONOMICS AT
GSSS TANEHAR, DISTRICT MANDI
(H.P.) AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS.
....PETITIONERs
(SH. VISHWA BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2022 20:04:15 :::CIS
-6-
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO GOVERNMENT OF
.
HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, LALPANI, SHIMLA-1.
....RESPONDENTS
(SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
This petition coming on for orders 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 the notification dated 15.5.2018 may kindly
be implemented in view of the judgment passed
by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 342/2021 titled
as "Yashwant Singh and Others versus State of
Himachal Pradesh and another.
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 further
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 versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and others along with connected matters, decided on
31.8.2022.
4. Learned Deputy 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, also
stand disposed of.
(Sabina)
Judge
(Satyen Vaidya)
14th October, 2022 Judge
(kck)
