Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 13.11.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 13 November, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:11434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2765 of 2024
Decided on: 13.11.2024
Sh. Sunny Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. B. Nandan Vasishta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of This petition the petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the
Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting
aside the Impugned order dated 19.02.2024 i.e.
Annexure P-5, whereby the petitioner have been denied
the benefit of services rendered by them on Contract
basis for the purpose of seniority with all the
consequential benefits, being patently illegal and
arbitrary besides the same being in violation to the
settled law of the land.
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the
Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, to the respondent university, to
count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract
basis for the purpose of seniority, increments and
pension and release all consequential benefits flowing
therefrom, thereby grant seniority, increments and all the
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:11434
consequential benefits from the initial date of
appointment i.e. 25.10.2018."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology) on the basis of a
process that was undertaken by the respondent-University, on
contract basis. Though, the appointment was on contract basis, yet
recruitment was done strictly by following the procedure prescribed
in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The petitioner was offered
appointment vide Office Order dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure P-2) and
immediately thereafter he joined the duty. Thereafter, the services of
the petitioner have been regularised vide Annexure P-3, dated
04.01.2022. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed
the order, which has been passed by the Authority concerned, in
terms whereof, the prayer of the petitioner to count contractual
service rendered by him for the purpose of seniority, has been
rejected.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the Writ Petition as well as the response filed
by respondent No.2 and documents appended therewith.
4. It is not in dispute that appointment of the petitioner
initially on contract basis was by following the procedure prescribed
in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. After his appointment as
such, he continues to serve without any break and said appointment
of culminated into his regularisation. In other words, as from the
2024:HHC:11434
date when the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as per the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules, there was no break in service. It
could also not be demonstrated that the quality of work that was
being performed by the petitioner while serving on contract basis
was different or distinct as from the work which now he is
performing after his services have been regularised.
5. That being the case, the petitioner indeed is entitled to
have the contractual service rendered by him counted for the
purposes of seniority in terms of the law declared by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'
Association Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2
Supreme Court Cases 715. The rejection of the case of the petitioner
in terms of Annexure P-5 is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of
law. Even, Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in in CWP No. 2004
of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad and
others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 03.08.2023, in terms
of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to therein, has
held as under:-
"The above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it
amply clear that if the initial appointment is made after
considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the
appointees continued on the post uninterruptedly till
regularization of the service in accordance with the Rules
made for regular substantive appointments, there is no
reason to exclude the officiating service for the purpose of
seniority and same will be the position if the initial
2024:HHC:11434
appointment itself is made in accordance with the Rules
applicable to substantive appointments."
6. In light of above discussion, this Writ Petition is
allowed. Annexure P-5 is quashed and set aside and the respondents
are directed to consider the service rendered by the petitioner on
contract basis followed by regular service for the purposes of
seniority and other consequential benefits.
7. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
November 13, 2024
(Rishi)
