Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7431 of 2022
Between:-
1. RAJIV KUMAR, SON OF SH.
ATMA RAM, AGED 46 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE PULBAHAL,
TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT
SHIMLA (HP), PRESENTLY
POSTED AS LECTURER
(SCHOOL NEW ) HINDI IN
GOVERNMENT SENIOR
SECONDARY SCHOOL
PULBAHAL, TEHSIL CHOPAL,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP).
2. NEELAM KUMARI, DAUGHTER
OF SH. JAI RAM VERMA, AGED
45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE THANA, POST
OFFICE PULBAHAL, TEHSIL
CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA
(HP), PRESENTLY POSTED AS
LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)
ENGLISH IN GOVERNMENT
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
PULBAHAL, TEHSIL CHOPAL,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP).
3. REETA KUMARI, WIFE OF SH.
SATISH THAKUR, AGED 47
YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE THUNDAL, POST
OFFICE SARI, TEHSIL CHOPAL,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP),
PRESENTLY POSED AS
LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:04:16 :::CIS
2
HINDI IN GOVERNMENT
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
SARI, TEHSIL CHOPAL,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP).
4. DALIP KUMAR, SON OF SH.
.
CHET RAM, AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE SARI, TEHSIL
CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA
(HP), PRESENTLY POSTED AS
LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW)
HISTORY IN GOVERNMENT
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
SARI, TEHSIL CHOPAL,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP).
5. ARUN CHAUHAN, SON OF SH.
JAI RAM, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE DEOTHI, POST
OFFICE SARI, TEHSIL CHOPAL,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP),
PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE
IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR
SECONDARY SCHOOL SARI,
TEHSIL CHOPAL, DISTRICT
SHIMLA (HP).
6. CHANDER PRAKASH, SON OF
SH. J.R. GAZTA, AGED 42
YEARS, RESIDENT OF GEETA
BHAWAN, DEONGHAT, POST
OFFICE SAPROON, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SOLAN (HP),
PRESENTLY POSTED AS DPE
IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR
SCHOOL PULBAHAL, TEHSIL
CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA
(HP).
7. SARITA KUMARI, DAUGHTER
OF SH. LAIQ RAM, AGED 39
YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE THANA, POST
OFFICE PULBAHAL, TEHSIL
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:04:16 :::CIS
3
CHOPAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA
(HP), PRESENTLY POSTED AS
DRAWING MASTER (DM) IN
GOVERNMENT SENIOR
SECONDARY SCHOOL
.
PULBAHAL, TEHSIL CHOPAL,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP).
8. SAVITRI CHAUHAN,
DAUGHTER OF SH. DAULAT
RAM, AGED 37 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOTI,
POST OFFICE PAURIA, TEHSIL
NERWA, DISTRICT SHIMLA
(HP), PRESENTLY POSTED AS
SHASTRI IN GOVERNMENT
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
JHINKNIPUL, TEHSIL NERWA,
DISTRICT SHIMLA (HP). ....PETITIONERS
(BY MR. DHARAM SINGH
CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.
3. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-1. ....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAJU RAM RAHI,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
__________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:04:16 :::CIS
4
This Civil Writ 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(s):-
"I. That a writ in the nature of writ of
mandamus may be issued directing the
respondents to strictly implement,
Annexure P-3, dated 11.05.2018 and
grant regularization of services of the
petitioners with effect from 1.4.2018
alongwith all consequential benefits.
II. An appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to fix the pay of
the petitioners accordingly and calculate
and pay arrears of salary alongwith
interest."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioners were initially appointed on Parent Teacher
Association (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 vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and others alongwith connected matters, decided on
31.08.2022.
4. Learned
r Deputy Advocate General has not
controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners.
5. Operative part of the decision dated 31.08.2022,
passed in CWP No.342 of 2011, 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 comp ulsions 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).
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
( Sabina )
Judge
( Sushil Kukreja )
October 20, 2022 Judge
(Yashwant)
