Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neelam Kumari vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 8 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.10259 of 2023
Decided on: 08th January, 2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Neelam Kumari ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ....Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner
rt : Mr.
Mr.
Rajesh
Rakesh
Kumar &
Chauhan,
Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice
on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant
writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in
view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
pleadings.
3. The petitioner has come up before this Court,
seeking following relief(s):-
.
"(i). That an appropriate writ, order or directions
may kindly be issued and the respondents may
kindly be directed to grant salary/emoluments
to the petitioner has been granted to the
contract teachers of the respective categories on
of
and w.e.f. 1.4.2007 strictly as per office order
dated 7.4.2007 by further directing the
respondents to grant the vacation period salary
rt to the petitioner as also the benefit of merger of
50% DA in the interest of law and justice.
(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions
may kindly be issued and the respondents may
kindly be directed to grant the similarly benefit
to the petitioner as has been granted to other
teachers on the basis of CWP No.4954/2012
Annexure P-2 and as has been granted to the
other teachers vide Annexure P-3 dated
11.10.2023 by granting the arrears in the
interest of law and justice."
4. In the above backdrop, the grievance/claim of
the petitioner, is that the petitioner was initially
appointed as a Para Teacher (Language Teacher) on
31.05.2004, under the Para Teacher Policy framed by the
Government and she was regularized. Now, she is
claiming the same emoluments as Para-Teacher, in
Government Schools on the same analogy, as being given
.
to the contract teachers appointed by the State
Government, in terms of the Division Bench judgment
passed by this Court, in CWP No.4954 of 2012-F, titled
as Madan Lal and others Versus State of Himachal
of
Pradesh and others and connected matter, decided on
07.11.2012, (Annexure P-1), and the petitioner being
rt
similarly placed has been singled out and denied the
benefits.
5. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy
Advocate General, vehemently opposes the prayer of the
petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is claiming
the benefit for the period 2007 to 2010 by filing a petition
after thirteen years and even after a period of ten years
from the judgment in case of Madan Lal (supra), which
suffers from delay and laches. However, learned State
Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner, shall be
examined, in light of the judgment, passed by the
Division Bench, of this Court in Madan Lal's case
(supra).
.
6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that on the basis of the judgment in
CWP No.4954 of 2012-F, titled as Madan Lal and
others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others
of
and connected matter (supra), (Annexure P-1), and the
judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.7661 of
rt
2019, titled as Pushap Raj Khimta and others Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on
29.06.2022, respondent No.2-Director, Elementary
Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, has issued a
communication dated 26.07.2014, and recently on
20.04.2023 whereby, the respondents have decided to
implement the judgment and to give the revised pay
benefits to Para Teachers for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2007
to 31.03.2010, in terms of the judgment in case of
Pushap Raj Khimta (supra) subject to the LPA filed in
that case and, therefore, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that once the benefits have been
extended to others then, there is no delay in filing the
.
writ petition.
7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for
the petitioner, on instructions submits, that the
petitioner may be permitted to make representation to
of
No.2-Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh,
Shimla. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed by
rt
the learned State Counsel also.
8. Accordingly, this Court permits the petitioner
to make a representation to respondent No.2-Director,
Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla,
within two weeks from today; with further directions to
the aforesaid respondent to consider/examine the matter
by passing appropriate orders in view of communication
dated 26.07.2014, and furnishing of undertaking(s),
subject to LPA, within four weeks thereafter, in view of
the judgment(s) passed by this Court, in cases of Madan
Lal and Pushap Raj Khimta (supra).
9. 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.
of
(Ranjan Sharma)
January 08, 2024
rt Judge
(Shivender)
