Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 2 May, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 10409 of 2023
Decided on 02nd May 2024
Rakesh Kumar
.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
r with Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be
issued directed the respondents to
regularize the service of the petitioner
form the initial appointment when he was
appointed on contract basis i.e.
Annexure P-6, dated 08.09.2020 with all
consequential benefits.
b) The impugned office order dated
08.09.2020 contained in Annexure P-6
may kindly be set aside and quashed.
c) That the respondents kindly be directed
to grant all consequential benefits to the
petitioner same as has been granted to
other similar situated person as per the
judgment supra and thereafter fresh
.
seniority list may kindly be prepared."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed
as Junior Office Assistant (IT) by the respondent-Department
on 08.09.2020 against the quota reserved for persons with
disability, on contract basis. According to the petitioner, in terms
of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Union of India and another versus National Federation of the
Blind and others (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 772, as the
petitioner was appointed against the posts reserved for persons
with physical disability, his appointment has to be on regular
basis from the initial date and not on contract. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to
Annexure P-8 appended with the petition and has submitted
that following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, this Court also has issued directions that persons, who
are physically disabled and have been appointed against the
quota reserved for physically disabled persons have to be
offered appointment on regular basis from the initial date of
appointment. Accordingly, he prays that the petition be allowed
and the respondents be directed to offer appointment to the
petitioner on regular basis from the date of his initial
.
appointment.
3. The respondents have filed the reply to the writ
petition, in terms whereof, it is admitted that the petitioner was
indeed appointed under the quota reserved for persons with
disability. However, the stand of the State is that there is no
provision of regular appointment to the persons with disability in
the statue and as the appointment in the State of Himachal
Pradesh is being offered only on contract basis, therefore, there
is no infirmity in the decision of the Department in offering
appointment to the petitioner on contract basis.
4. Though, learned Advocate General has reiterated
this by way of his arguments, but it could not be disputed by
him that in the cases of persons similarly situated as the
petitioner, directions stand issued by this Court by relying upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the services of
such like persons be regularized from the initial date of their
appointment has passed similar orders.
5. Accordingly, in this view of the matter, as it could
not be disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was
against the post reserved for physically disabled person, the
.
issue which has to be decided by this Court is whether the
petitioner is entitled for appointment on regular from the date of
his initial recruitment or not.
6. This issue in fact is no more res integra and this
Court in Nitin Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
another (supra), while dealing with similar situation has held
after placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Union of India versus National Federation of
the Blinds and others, 2013 (10) SCC 772, that the petitioner
having been appointed in terms of the reservation provided
under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995, was entitled for all protections as were envisaged in the
Act and this included the petitioner being entitled to be
appointed on regular basis from the very inception. As the
factual matrix involved in the present case is akin to the one in
Nitin Kumar's case supra, therefore, this writ petition is
disposed of with the direction that as the petitioner was
appointed, though on contract basis, but 6 against the post of
Clerk reserved for physically disabled persons, therefore, in
.
light of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as
followed by this Court also in Nitin Kumar's case (supra), the
petitioner is entitled to be appointed on regular basis from the
initial date of his appointment.
7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the
respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the
petitioner on regular basis from the date of his initial
appointment, i.e. 08.09.2020. The respondents are further
directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner
within a period of three months from today. The petition stands
disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
May 02, 2024
(Vinod)
