Narayan Dutt Sharma And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 13715 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Narayan Dutt Sharma And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 12 September, 2024

                                                 1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                  CWP No.2130 of 2021
                                                  Date of Decision : 12.09.2024




                                                                               .

Narayan Dutt Sharma and others
                                                                 ...... Petitioners
                                          Versus





State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                                                 ......Respondents

Coram:




For the petitioners          :
                              r               to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?1

                                  Mr. Dewa Nand Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents :             Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition

pertains to petitioner No.1-Narayan Dutt Sharma only, as separate petitions have

been filed on behalf of the other petitioners.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking following substantive

relief:-

"That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, by directing the respondents to grant the petitioners, the benefits of pay scale, annual increments, seniority, promotion and pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and GPF etc. by counting their contractual services as JBT teachers, from their initial appointment till their regularization, as qualifying service, for the grant of said benefits, as has been granted to the similarly

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

situated persons, in the judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed in CWP No.2411/2019 titled as Jagdish Chand vs. State of HP and other such connected matters."

.

3. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner (Narayan Dutt Sharma)

was appointed as JBT on contract basis on 30.03.1998. Subsequent thereto, the

services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2007. In the case at hand,

petitioner is seeking benefits of past service rendered as a contractual employee

for the aforesaid period.

4.

On 03.09.2024, the following order was passed:-

"The present petition has been filed seeking the following

substantive relief:

(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners respondents, by and against directing the the

respondents to grant the petitioners, the benefits of pay scale, annual increments, seniority, promotion and pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and GPF etc. by counting their contractual services as JBT teachers,

from their initial appointment till their regularisation, as qualifying service, for the grant of benefits, as has been granted to similarly situated persons, said the in the

judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed in CWP No. 2411/2019 titled as Jagdish Chand Vs State of HP and other such connected matters.

The admitted position in the case at hand is that the

petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the year 1998

against the post of JBT. The aforesaid appointments on a contract

basis was against regular post. The petitioners were entitled to a

monthly honorarium. While working on a contract, the petitioners

were discharging the same and similar duties as were discharged

by regular JBTs.

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioners submits that the case at hand is squarely covered

by the judgment passed in CWP No. 2411 of 2019, titled as Jagdish

.

Chand vs. State of H.P. and others a/w connected matters, decided

on 10.01.2020. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submits that the aforesaid judgment stands

implemented.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has

supplied a list of cases, wherein a similar issue arises for

consideration, the same be tagged alongwith the present petition.

Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further

submits that financial benefits in view of the aforesaid judgment is

only to be restricted to three years back to filing of the present

petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Additional Advocate

General seeks time to have instructions. List on 12.09.2024."

5. In pursuance to order dated 03.09.2024, learned Additional

Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated September, 2024.

The same are taken on record. Copy, whereof, has been supplied to learned

counsel for the petitioner.

6. From perusal of above instructions, it is evident that as per the

respondents, petitioner is entitled to similar benefits as have been extended by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10399/2020, titled

as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi, decided on

07.08.2023 i.e. counting of service rendered on contract for the purpose of

pension. Petitioner, in the case at hand, is seeking benefits on the basis of

Jagdish Chand's judgment. Jagdish Chand's case had been disposed of by the

Apex Court in terms of Sheela Devi, therefore, relief can only be extended to the

.

petitioner in terms of Sheela Devi's case. Ordered accordingly.

In view of above terms, present petition is disposed of, so also,

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

                                                  ( Bipin Chander Negi)
September 12, 2024 (KS)                                   Judge