Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 24.10.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 24 October, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:10281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 7377 of 2024
Decided on: 24.10.2024
Shashi Kant ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Tijender Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General for respondent No.
1.
: Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No. 2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for the following relief:-
(i) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued
and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant
the benefit of counting the period of services rendered
on contract basis for the purpose of determining the
seniority and other consequential service benefits to
the petitioner, as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide
its judgment dated 03.08.2023 ANNEXURE P-4),
passed in CWP 2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:10281
& Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
decided alongwith CWP 629 of 2018 titled as State of
Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Lekh Ram &
Others, in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Auction
Recorder, on contract basis, in terms of Annexure P-1, dated
21.07.2011, with respondent-Board.
3. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner
was in consonance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which
is also evident from the fact that his name was sponsored by the
Himachal Pradesh Services Selection Board, Hamirpur, for the
purpose of appointment. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner
were regularized in terms of office order dated 04.10.2016. The prayer
of the petitioner is that as his initial was as per the procedure
prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the services
rendered by him on contract basis are liable to be counted for the
purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court 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 and submitted
that as this issue is no more res integra, the respondents be directed
to grant same benefits to the petitioner, as have been granted by
2024:HHC:10281
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad's case
(supra).
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Board has
submitted that the petition is hit by delay and laches and as the
petitioner was acquiesced to his appointment on contract basis,
therefore, now the petitioner cannot be allowed to seek the reliefs as
are being prayed for by him.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the fact that there is no dispute that initial
appointment of the petitioner, though on contract basis, was as per
the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules
and his contract service without any break culminated into his
regularization, the petitioner is entitled for seniority as from the date
of initial appointment, in terms of lead declared by Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad's case (supra), which
judgment in fact has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
and which judgment is based on Constitutional Bench judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering
Officer's Association vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2
SCC 715.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to treat the service rendered by the
petitioner from his initial date of appointment, on contract basis, for
2024:HHC:10281
the purpose of seniority and promotion. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
October 24, 2024
(narender)
