Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ranjeet Singh Thakur & Ors vs State Of H.P & Ors on 24 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.3282/2019.
Reserved on :21.11.2023.
Date of Decision:24th November, 2023.
.
Dr. Ranjeet Singh Thakur & ors. .....Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P & ors. .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta,
of
Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. Advocate
rt General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel
Counsel, for respondent No.3.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
The present petition was filed in September, 2012. During the
pendency of present petition, petitioners were regularized on 1.7.2015.
2. When the matter was listed on 21.11.2023, two Notifications dated 7 th
September, 2009 and 31st May, 2010 pertaining to appointment on contract
basis some of the Lecturers who are petitioners before this Court and another
Notification dated 1st July, 2015, whereby services of some of the petitioners
were regularized, were taken on record in order to demonstrate the terms
and conditions as made applicable at the time of contractual appointment as
well as regularization of the petitioners.
The learned Advocate General had no objection if the same were taken
on record.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
3. At present, learned counsel for the petitioners limits his prayer to relief
No.ii.
"ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
.
appropriate writ or directions may kindly be issued directing the
respondents to treat the petitioners and similarly situated Assistant
Professors working on contract basis as regular, keeping in view the
fact that their qualification, mode of recruitment, responsibilities,
fundamental duties are same and they have been appointed against
the sanctioned posts through the Regular Selection Process
conducted by H.P. Public Service Commission."
4. Primarily at this stage, petitioners are seeking the counting of their
of
contract service for the purpose of annual increment, seniority and
consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment.
rt
5. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in (College Cadre)
in the Department of Higher Education on contract basis on a fixed
contractual agreement, as per terms and conditions of R & P Rules applicable
to the recruitment for the said post. Services of the petitioners were
regularized on 01.07.2015 after completion of requisite 05 years continuous
contractual service. On regularization, petitioners were placed at the initial of
the time scale of the post.
6. It is also undisputed that initial recruitment of the petitioners in the
year 2009-2010 though on contract basis, but was made following procedure
prescribed under R & P Rules framed by the Department, under the Proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and the process was undertaken by
the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, the prescribed recruitment
agency.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that initial
appointment of the petitioners on contract basis, followed by regularization,
was made by following Rules in force and was substantive appointment
against the sanctioned post through a process undertaken by the prescribed
agency for recruitment under the Rules through a competitive process,
wherein all eligible candidates were considered and evaluated.
.
8. The learned Advocate General has contended that a perusal of the
regularization order reveals that the regularization of the petitioners is with
prospective effect. Besides the aforesaid, the learned Advocate General has
contended that posts when advertised had been advertised for contractual
of
appointment, petitioners had accepted appointment without any demur.
According to learned Advocate General, the Recruitment and Promotions
rt
Rules provided for contractual appointment.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through entire record of the case carefully.
10. The Principal Division Bench of this High Court, referring and relying on
pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court has pronounced
judgment dated 03.08.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Sh. Taj
Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others alongwtih
connected matter, wherein, in the identical circumstances petitioners
therein have been held entitled for seniority from initial date of appointment
on contract basis with all consequential benefits.
11. The claim of petitioners for counting their contract service is squarely
covered by aforesaid judgment in Taj Mohammad's case and judgments
referred and relied therein. Therefore, the reasons and the grounds assigned
for deciding the aforesaid CWP No. 2004 of 2017 shall be applicable
mutatis mutandis in the present case for all intents and purposes.
12. It would be pertinent to mention that in Taj Mohammad's case
regularization had been done with prospective effect. Recruitment therein
was also made in furtherance of Recruitment and Promotion Rules which
.
provided for contractual appointment. The same therein also had been
accepted without a demur.
13. Besides the aforesaid, Division Bench of this High Court referring and
relying on pronouncement of the Supreme Court and this Court has
of
pronounced the judgment dated 28.9.2023, in CWPOA No.1745 of 2020
titled Chaman Lal & others vs. State of H.P & others , wherein it has
rt
been held that contract service shall be counted for the purpose of annual
increment and pensionary benefits. Petitioners therein, who were appointed
on contract basis by following the Policy adopted by the State, but dehors the
R & P Rules, have been held entitled for counting of contract service for the
purpose of pension and annual increments, whereas petitioners herein is on
better footing than the petitioners in those petitions, who has been appointed
by following prescribed procedure provided under R & P Rules. Therefore,
petitioners herein are also entitled for counting of their contract service from
their initial date of appointment for the purpose of seniority as well as annual
increments alongwith all consequential benefits.
14. Learned Advocate General has submitted that, in terms of judgment
passed in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of H.P., reported in AIR 1998 SCC
2819, actual monetary benefits be restricted for three years prior to filing of
the petition as the petitioner has approached the Court at a belated stage.
15. The above contention of learned Advocate General is not sustainable.
The petitioners were engaged on contractual basis in the year 2009-2010.
They were regularized in the year 2015, while the present proceedings were
pending adjudication, hence there is no delay on the part of petitioners
approaching the Court for redressal of their grievances. Therefore, actual
.
monetary benefits shall not be restricted for three years prior to filing of the
petition.
16. Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms with direction to
the respondents to undertake entire exercise and extend consequential
of
benefits to the petitioners. All benefits including seniority shall be settled and
extended to the petitioner on or before 31st January, 2024 and payment of
rt
arrears of monetary benefits may be disbursed by the respondents in terms of
instructions of Finance Department, including instructions dated 07.01.2012
and 17.09.2022.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
24th November, 2023
(CS)
