Babita Kapoor & Anr vs State Of H.P. & Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 15599 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Babita Kapoor & Anr vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 24 October, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7160 of 2024 Date of decision: 24.10.2024

Babita Kapoor & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioners.

For the respondent(s) :                 Mr.   Sikander    Bhushan     and
                                        Ms.   Leena    Guleria,    Deputy
                                        Advocates    General,   for   the
                                        respondents.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

It is not in dispute that in Taj Mohammad Vs. State of

H.P.1; issue has been settled that in case initial contractual

appointment of an employee is in accordance with the relevant

Rules and such an uninterrupted service is followed by

regularization, the said service has to be counted for all intents

and purposes and the consequential service benefits will follow.

2. Based upon the above pronouncement, the petitioners

have filed this petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-

(i) That the Respondents may be directed count contractual service rendered by the petitioners for purpose of annual increments, leave encashments, grant of benefit of carrier progression scheme, and for the

CWP No.2004 of 2017 decided on 03.08.2023.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

purpose of qualifying service for pension. The consequential arrears of financial benefits may be ordered to be released to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum.

(ii) That the contractual service rendered by the petitioner may be counted for the purpose of fixing seniority.

3. Facts of the case put-forth by the petitioners have not

been disputed by the respondents:-

The Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection

Board, Hamirpur issued an advertisement on 13.12.2011 initiating

recruitment process for filling up several posts in different

Departments including post Code No.316 (Clerks). Petitioners

participated in the recruitment process and were appointed as

Clerks on contract basis vide office order dated 15.09.2012. Their

services were regularized on 15.05.2017. It is not in dispute that

contract appointment of the petitioners was followed by

regularization. Petitioner's initial appointments were also

strictly in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the

post in question. The respondents, have also not disputed that

the petitioners possess the requisite criteria for appointment to

the post.

The only stand taken in the reply is that the

petitioners had furnished their options for counting their contract

services for pensionary benefits under Central Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1972, only on 28.06.2024.

4. In view of the admitted factual position and the legal

position having already been settled down, this writ petition is

allowed. The respondents are directed to confer the benefit of the

judgment in Taj Mohammad Vs. State of H.P., to the petitioners

within a period six weeks from today.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

stands disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua th 24 October, 2024 Judge (manish)