Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar vs State Of H.P. Along With Connected ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7052 of 2022
Between:-
1. VIJAY KUMAR, SON OF SH.
JAGAN NATH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE DHARA, P.O. GARSA,
TEHSIL BHUNTAR, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P.
2. SUKH DAYAL, SON OF SH. LUDER
CHAND, RESIDENT OF VPO
BREHIN, TEHSIL SAINJ, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P., AGED ABOUT 47.
3. VIJAY BHARAT NEGI, SON OF
LATE SH. ALAM CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UPPER
SAINJ, P.O. SAINJ, SUB TEHSIL
SAINJ, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.,
AGED ABOUT 47.
4. RUP LAL, SON OF SH. JOG RAJ,
RESIDENT OF VPO HARIPUR,
TEHSIL MAN, DISTRICT KULLU,
H.P., AGED ABOUT 41.
5. VINOD KUMAR, SON OF SH. JAI
DEV, RESIDENT OF VPO
::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2022 20:03:15 :::CIS
2
MADANA, TEHSIL SAINJ,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. AGE
ABOUT 35.
.
6. RAMESH CHAND, SON OF SH.
JAI CHAND, RESIDENT OF VPO
BREHIN, TEHSIL SAINJ, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P. AGE ABOUT 43.
7. YASHWANT SINGH, SON OF SH.
PYARE LAL, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE DHAGAHARA, P.O.
MADANA, TEHSIL SAINJ,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. AGE
ABOUT 42.
8. RAKESH KUMAR, SON OF LEELA
DHAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
DHAGHARA, P.O. MADANA,
TEHSIL SAINJ, DISTRICT KULLU,
H.P. AGE ABOUT 34.
9. DABE RAM, SON OF SH. BIR
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BANAS, P.O. JAON, TEHSIL ANNI,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. AGE
ABOUT 40.
10. MEENAKSHI, DAUGHTER OF SH.
PRAKASH CHAND, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BHATEHAR, P.O.
SAINTHAL, TEHSIL JOGINDER
NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
AGE ABOUT 43.
....PETITIONERS
(BY MR. GANESH BAROWALIA,
ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF MR.
HEMANT THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2022 20:03:15 :::CIS
3
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS
.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, H.P. SECRETARIAT,
SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-
1.
(BY MR.
ADDITIONAL
GENERAL)
rANIL
toJASWAL,
ADVOCATE
....RESPONDENTS
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 substantive relief: -
"i). That in view of the mentioned facts and
circumstances, the present writ petition may kindly be
allowed and respondent department may kindly be
directed to regularize the services of the petitioners
w.e.f. 5.1.2018 instead of 17.8.2020 along with all
consequential benefits in view of law laid down by this
Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, titled as Yashwant Singh
vs. State of H.P. along with connected matters, in the
interest of justice and fair play."
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
impugned
r to
hesitation to hold that in the facts of instant case the
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
October 19, 2022
(reena)
