Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Another on 24 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.9275 of 2023
Decided on: 24th November, 2023
__________________________________________________________
.
Sandeep Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another
......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
of
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi and
Ms. Bhavinta, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate
General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate
General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of
respondents.
2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Lecturer
(Geography) (School Cadre) initially through Parents Teachers
Association (PTA), under the H.P. Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules,
2006, and as per the Government Policy was later brought on
Government Contract; and was regularized on same post
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
belatedly, has come up before this Court, seeking the following
relief:-
"That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued,
directing the respondents to regularize the
.
services of the petitioner from the due date i.e.
January, 2018 i.e. on completion of 3 years
continuous contractual service, in terms of the
regularization policy and in terms of the
judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by this
of
Hon'ble Court in CWP No.342/2021 titled as
Yashwant Singh & others v/s State of H.P. &
others alongwith other connected matters
rt (Annexure P-1), with all consequential benefits
including seniority at appropriate place."
3. Case of the petitioner as submitted by Mr. Subhash
Mohan Snehi, learned counsel is, that being eligible, the
petitioner was initially appointed and joined as Lecturer
(Geography) (School Cadre) on 22.05.2006 against sanctioned
post under respondent No.2-Director, Higher Education,
Himachal Pradesh, in accordance with his eligibility under the
Parents Teacher Association (Grant-in-Aid) Rules, 2006.
Learned counsel further submits that as per the Government
decision dated 16.08.2013, the teachers including the
petitioner, who was appointed through PTA and had completed
seven years of such services were brought on government
contract, in the month of January, 2015.
4. He also submits that while working as Teachers, on
.
contract basis, the State Government further took a decision on
11.05.2018, for regularizing the services of PTA contractual
teachers on completion of three years of contractual service w.e.f.
01.04.2018 and though the respondents have granted the
of
regularization to many other similarly placed and even junior
incumbents from due date i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2018, but the
rt
respondents were granted the benefit of regularization to the
petitioner on 20.08.2020 belatedly has resulting in treating the
equals as unequal which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
matter in issue, as to whether the contractual PTA-incumbents
were to be granted regularization on completion of three years of
contractual service, in terms of the Government decision dated
11.05.2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2018, the date on completion of three
years of contractual service as PTA, stands adjudicated by the
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, titled as
Yashwant Singh and others Versus The State of Himachal
Pradesh and another alongwith connected matters, decided
on 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-1).
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the SLP i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6966
.
of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus
Yashwant Singh & Ors., filed by State Authorities stands
dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.04.2023; and the
judgment in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra), also stands
of
implemented by the respondents.
7. In the backdrop of the facts mentioned in
submits
rt
Paras-1 to 6 above, the learned counsel for the petitioner
that once the respondents have granted the
regularization to the teachers from the date of completion of
three years of contractual service w.e.f 01.04.2018 to many
similarly placed incumbents, including juniors then, the denial
of similar benefit of regularization from the date of completion
of three years of contractual service to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.04.2018 [instead of granting him regularization w.e.f.
20.08.2020], is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. The denial of regularization to the petitioner
w.e.f. 20.08.2020 has resulted in depriving the petitioner of the
benefits of higher pay and higher fixation w.e.f. 01.04.2018 in
the unrevised scale and now in the revised scale after issuance
of the HPCS (Revised Pay) Rules on 03.01.2023 and this has
also resulted in denying the benefit of eligibility and grant of
.
ACP on completion of four years of service from an earlier date
i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and denial thereof is a recurring loss,
every month, till day.
9. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
of
Advocate General, at this stage, submits that the delay in
granting regularization to the petitioner from due date was in
rt
view of the pendency of litigation in CWP No.6916 of 2011,
titled as Pankaj Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh &
others, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was decided on
17.04.2020.
10. Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances and the request, so made by the learned counsel,
on instructions, prays for permission to make a representation
to respondent No.2-Director, Higher Education, Himachal
Pradesh. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by the
State Counsel also and needs to be granted.
11. Accordingly, this Court permits the petitioner to
make a representation to respondent No.2-Director, Higher
Education, Himachal Pradesh, within three weeks from today;
with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider/
examine the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment,
passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra);
.
against which the SLP filed by State Authorities-Respondents
stands dismissed and the judgment has been implemented in
case of many others and even juniors, and then to pass
appropriate orders, without discriminating the petitioner, in
of
accordance with law, within six weeks thereafter and not later
than 31.01.2024.
12.
rt
Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted
to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all Questions
of facts and law are left open.
In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
November 24, 2023
(Bhardwaj)
