Mamta Devi & Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 17633 HP

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                             AT SHIMLA
                                       CWP No.8619 of 2023
                                       Decided on: 7th November, 2023
    ____________________________________________________




                                                                          .
    Mamta Devi & anr.                           ....Petitioners





                                               Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh & anr.                                     ....Respondents

    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
    1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes




    For the petitioners

    For the respondents
                       r                to:

                                          :
                                               Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.

                                               Mr.   B.C.
                                               Advocate
                                                             Verma,
                                                            General,
                                                                                     Additional
                                                                                     for    the

                                               respondents.


    Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners have filed the instant petition,

praying for following relief(s):-

"(i). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increment, promotion and other consequential financial benefits in terms of the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

judgment passed by this Hon'ble Apex Court in Direct recruit case 1990 SC Vol 2 Page 715 as well as by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.2004/2017."

3. The case of the petitioners as submitted by the

.

learned counsel is that, the petitioners were appointed as

Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on contract basis on

14.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) and regularized on 16.06.2020

(Annexure P-2). Petitioner No.1 (Mamta Devi) is presently

working as TGT (Arts) on regular basis in GSSS Joghon,

District Solan r and Petitioner No.2-Ravinder Kumar is

presently working as TGT (Arts) on regular basis in GSSS

Jarwa Juneli (Sirmaur). The petitioners are praying for the

benefits of seniority, increment and other service benefits by

counting the contractual service rendered from 2017 to 2022

for these benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgments passed in the case of Direct

Recruit Case 1990 SC Vol 2 page 715 and the judgment of

the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal & Others

versus Aghore Nath Dey & Others and connected matters

(1993) 3 SCC 371. He further relies upon the judgment

passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

CWP No.7079 of 2023, titled as Inder Dev versus State of

Himachal Pradesh & anr., decided on 29.09.2023

(Annexure P-3).

.

4. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional

Advocate General, vehemently opposes the petition on two

grounds; (i) that the petitioners have not impleaded the

persons who are likely to be affected vis-à-vis the claim

for seniority and therefore, the petition is defective on account

of non-joinder of necessary parties; and (ii) petitioners being a

contract appointees, cannot be granted the benefit of seniority

for contractual period without assailing the Recruitment and

Promotion Rules and on these point no finding exists in ,the

above judgments, which as per him, are not applicable. In

this background, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional

Advocate General, submits that the petitioners have filed the

instant writ petition, without approaching the respondents,

for ventilating their grievances/claims in accordance with law.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners

prays for and is granted three weeks' time to move a

representation either separately or jointly to the Respondent

No. 2 - Director of Elementary Education, Shimla; with

further directions to the aforesaid respondent-authority, to

examine and decide the same, in accordance with law after

within six weeks thereafter.

.

6. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted

to the merits of the matter and all questions of facts

and law are left open.

As aforesaid, the instant writ petition, as well as,

the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

r to stand disposed of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge November 07, 2023 (shivender)