IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.72 of 2018 Decided on : 19.06.2026 Pradeep Kumar Attri ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned letter dated 31.03.2016 as contained in Annexure P--7 be quashed and set aside. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondent No.4 may very kindly be directly to immediately reengage the services of the petitioner as Peon/Class-IV with immediate effect with all consequential benefit of pay, seniority and continuity and further respondent No.4 be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. The petitioner vide letter dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) was called for an interview to be held on 21.07.2009 for being considered for an appointment on the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar on a part-time basis in respondent No.3-Institute. Subsequent to his appointment, the petitioner continued to work as such. Thereafter, on 26.06.2013 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was called for an interview to be held on 12.07.2013 for the post of Peon (Class- IV) in respondent No.3-Institute. 3. Post being appointed as a Peon, vide Annexure P- 3 dated 30.11.2013, the petitioner for the Session 2013-14 was appointed on an outsourced basis on a contract in respondent No.3-Institute, against the post of Paricharak (Peon). Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated. On account of the aforesaid termination, the petitioner had filed a civil writ petition bearing CWP No. 4676 of 2014-H. The same was decided vide judgment dated 30.10.2014. Copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Annexure P-4 (page 13 of the paper book). 4. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the services of the petitioner had been terminated on account of non-release of grant-in-aid by present respondent No.2. In -3- terms of the judgment dated 30.10.2014 respondent No.2 was directed to release the grant-in-aid immediately.The services of the petitioner were to be reinstated forthwith on receipt of grant-in-aid. 5. For the purpose of implementation of the aforesaid judgment passed in CWP No.4676 of 2014-H, decided on 30.10.2014, an execution petition bearing No.1 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner. The same was disposed of in terms of order dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure P-6). 6. Since despite passing order dated 08.01.2015 in Execution Petition No.1 of 2015, nothing was done by the respondents, therefore the petitioner was forced to file CMP bearing No.7358 of 2015 in Execution Petition No.1 of 2015. The same was disposed of vide order dated 7th December, 2015 (placed at page 23 of the paper book). 7. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the principal of respondent No.3-Institute had categorically stated in his reply/compliance report that the services of the petitioner had been reinstated despite the fact that the grant- in-aid had not been received. Thereafter, a contempt petition bearing No.241 of 2017 was filed by the present petitioner. The same was disposed of vide judgment dated 30th October, -4- 2017 (page 15 of the paper book). The closure of the contempt proceedings was on account of recording of compliance of directions in order dated 7th December, 2015 passed in CMP No. 7358 of 2015 in Execution Petition No.1 of 2015 (pages 23-24 of the paper book). 8. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is with respect to the termination of the services of the petitioner in terms of letter dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure P-7). Perusal of the said letter categorically reflects that the services of the petitioner as a Mali were being terminated on the ground that there was no work available for Mali in respondent No.3- Institute. 9. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a joint reply. Respondent No.2 has categorically submitted therein that it has been promulgated under the Central Sanskrit Universities Act, 2020 and was previously known as Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. Respondent No.2 is stated to be a deemed University. Respondent No.2 has further averred that it provides financial assistance to institutions like respondent No.3. Grants are given for promoting Sanskrit and Sanskrit Traditional Shastraic education. Financial assistance is -5- provided to respondent No.3 and such like institutions for payment of salaries to the recognized teaching and non- teaching staff engaged by them. Funds in this respect are provided by the Government of India. 10. Other than the aforesaid, it is asserted in the reply that the recruitment, salary and other service conditions are under the administration of respondent Nos.3 and 4. As per the guidelines applicable, funding is limited to the extent of 95% of payment towards salaries and wages. 11. Moreover, it has been pointed out in the reply that the services of MTS, Chowkidar (Group-D) and LDCs are to be engaged through outsourcing. Further it is categorically asserted in the reply that the institutions like respondent No.3 are expected to engage the services of staff in such a manner, so as not to exceed the receipt of grants. Besides the aforesaid, in the reply, it is submitted that insofar as termination of the petitioner is concerned, respondents No.1 and 2 are not concerned with the same. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 have drawn the attention of this Court to notification dated 23.07.2012 appended along with the reply (at page 37 of the paper book). The said notification -6- pertains to "The Scheme for Financial Assistance to Institutions Recognized as Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas/Adarsh Shodha Sangathans". Herein, attention is specifically invited to Clause 35.4, which deals with the staffing pattern in a Mahavidyalaya, having students strength of 80 to 200 insofar as non-academic positions are concerned. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that insofar as present respondent No.3-Institution is concerned, one post of LDC, two posts of Peon and two posts of Chowkidar have been approved, in terms of the scheme. As per Clause 35.4, the services of the incumbents to the said posts have to be filled in through outsourcing. 13. A perusal of para 4 of the preliminary submissions of the reply filed by respondents No.3 and 4 categorically reflects that insofar as two posts of peons are concerned, one Subhash Chand and Kashmir Singh, were working as regular peons. At the time of filing of the reply in June, 2018 Subhash Chand was working as a regular Peon, whereas Kashmir Singh, the other regular Peon, had retired from service on 30.04.2012. Insofar as the post of Chowkidar is concerned, in terms of the reply, one Shri Dilbagh Singh was working as Chowkidar at the time of filing of the reply. -7- 14. Subsequent to the aforesaid, in compliance of order dated 29.04.2022 passed by this Court, a fresh affidavit was filed by the principal, respondent No.3-Institute, to point out specifically the incumbents working on the posts of Peon and Chowkidar. The said affidavit is at pages 77 to 79 of the paper book. From a perusal of the said affidavit, Subhash Chand, who was working against the post of a Peon at the time of filing of the reply, was retired on 31.03.2019. Against the post, which had been vacated by Kashmir Singh on 30.04.2012 one Sh. Vishal Kumar had been engaged on outsource basis since 01.01.2015. However, in the affidavit filed, it has been stated that his services had been discontinued. It has been categorically averred in the affidavit that presently, insofar as the two posts of Peons are concerned, one Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh. Rajesh Kumar are working on the said posts since 05.08.2017 and 16.03.2020 respectively. 15. Insofar as the two posts of Chowkidars are concerned, in the reply initially filed in June, 2018, it has been stated that one Sh. Dilbagh Singh was working as Chowkidar. As per the affidavit filed in pursuance to the order dated 29.04.2022, it has been categorically averred that Dilbagh -8- Singh stood retired on 31.03.2019. The post vacated has now been filled on outsourced basis by one Sh. Anuj Kumar since 06.06.2019. Insofar as the second post of Chowkidar is concerned, nothing has been averred. 16. Besides the aforesaid, in the reply filed by respondents No.3 and 4 it has been averred that after the petitioner was disengaged on 31.03.2016, he had been asked to enroll with an outsourced agency as for the post of Peon- cum-Chowkidar, respondent No.3 could only appoint individuals on outsourced basis in terms of “The Scheme for Financial Assistance to Institutions Recognized as Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas/Adarsh Shodha Sangathans”, i.e. notification dated 23.02.2012. 17. Attention of this Court is invited to Annexure R-4/4 at page 64 of the paper book to show that the petitioner was ready and willing to work in the respondent No.3-Institute on outsourced basis. Other than the aforesaid, reliance has been placed on 1997 (4) SCC 88, State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Ajay Kumar. Based on the judgment, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has contended that for making an appointment, there must be a post in existence. -9- 18. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, documents of the present petition and record of CWP No.4676 of 2014-H, decided on 30.10.2014 i.e previous civil writ petition filed by the petitioner against his previous dis-engagement. 19. Respondents No.3 and 4 with their reply have placed on record notification dated 23.07.2012, (Annexure R4/1 at page 37 of the paper book). In terms thereof subsequent to 29th June, 2012, the staffing pattern of respondent No.3 institute was to be strictly determined in terms of the said notification. Financial assistance to respondent No.3 for payment of salaries for recognized non- teaching posts were to be provided by respondent No.1. The financial assistance was to the extent of 95%. The same was to be routed through respondent No.2. Hence, institutions like respondent No.3 were expected to engage services of staff in a manner so as to not exceed the receipt of grants. 20. The staffing pattern for Mahavidyalaya like respondent No.3 having student strength of 80 to 200 has been delineated in clause 35.4 of notification dated 23.07.2012 promulgated with effect from 29.6.2012 i.e. Annexure-R4/1, (page 37 of the paper book). In terms of -10- clause 35.4, respondent No.3 can engage two peons and two chowkidars. As per the notification stated supra, services of the two Peons and two Chowkidars are to be obtained through outsourcing. Conspicuous by absence in clause 35.4 is the post of a Mali (Gardener). 21. In the case at hand, from a perusal of Annexure P- 3 dated 30.11.2013, it is evident that the petitioner for the second session of 2013-14 had been appointed on an outsource basis on a contract in respondent No.3-Institute against the post of a Paricharak (Peon). On termination of his services, the petitioner was forced to file a writ bearing CWP No.4676 of 2014-H. As has already been stated supra, the same was decided by judgment dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-4). In the judgment, it has categorically been mentioned that the services of the petitioner had been terminated on account of non-release of grant-in-aid by respondent No.2. In terms of the judgment dated 30.10.2014, respondent No.2 had been directed to release the grant-in-aid immediately. 22. From a perusal of the record pertaining to CWP No.4676 of 2014-H, specifically the reply filed therein by respondent Nos.3 and 4 at para 1(x), thereof it is evident that from October 2013 to December 2013, the petitioner had -11- worked as a Peon and he had been paid, out of the grants sanctioned by respondent No.2. The same reads as follow:- “1(x) October, 2013 to December, 2013. The petitioner was paid wages @ Rs.9000/-, Rs.8700/- and Rs.9000/- respectively for part time job of Peon out of the grant sanctioned by the respondent No.2.” 23. Besides the aforesaid, from a perusal of para 1(xii) (reply of respondents No.3 and 4 in CWP No.4676 of 2014-H), it is further evident that for the months of February and March 2014, the petitioner had been again engaged as a Peon and was paid, out of the funds sanctioned by respondent No.2. The same reads as under:- “1(xii) February, 2014 and March, 2014. The petitioner was paid the wages of Rs.9000/- and Rs.8710/- respectively out of the grant sanctioned by the respondent No.2.” 24. Further in para 7 of the reply, (reply of respondents No.3 and 4 in CWP No.4676 of 2014-H) it has been averred that since no grant-in-aid was received from respondent No.2 for payment of wages to the petitioner, therefore his services were disengaged from 31.03.2014. Relevant extract whereof read as follows:- -12- “7. The contention of the petitioner is wrong and denied. No person has been appointed on regular basis as Mali, Peon or Chowkidar after the petitioner after 31-3-2014. The contention of the petitioner is vague as he has not named the person who may have been appointed on regular basis. It is reiterated that the petitioner was disengaged on 31.03.2014 as no grant-in-aid was received from the respondent No.2 for payment of wages to the petitioner. The petitioner had to be disengaged on 31.03.2014 (After noon) and not on 16.06.2014 as contended by him.” Hence at the time of his termination on 31-3-2014 it is an admitted position that the petitioner was working as a peon and he was being paid out of the grant in aid provided by respondent No.2. 25. Since the judgment dated 30-10-2014 passed in CWP No.4676 of 2014-H was not being implemented, therefore the petitioner was forced to file Execution Petition No.1 of 2015. In the said Execution Petition, a compliance affidavit in pursuance to order dated 13-07-2015 was filed by respondent No.4. The same is placed at page 73 of the paper book of CWP No. 4676 of 2014-H. -13- 26. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that in terms of order dated 13-07-2015, i.e. Annexure R4/1, therein the services of the petitioner had been reinstated as Mali(Gardener), only to be terminated vide Annexure P-7 dated 31.3.2016 (impugned annexure). Reason cited therein being that after the Session 2015-16 from April 2016, due to non-availability of work of Mali(Gardener), the services of the petitioner are being terminated. As has already been stated supra in terms of notification dated 23.07.2012 promulgated with effect from 29.6.2012 i.e. Annexure-R4/1, (page 37 of the paper book) wherein staffing pattern of respondent No.3 has been provided in clause 35.4 thereof, there exists no post of a Mali(Gardener). The intent of respondent No.3 and 4 is further writ large from the fact that at the time of the petitioner’s termination on 31-03-2014 the petitioner was working against the post of a peon. Hence the re-instatement shown to the court on a previous occasion in compliance to the judgement dated 30-10-2014 passed in CWP No.4676 of 2014-H was with the sole intent of closing the Execution Petition No.1 of 2015 filed in pursuance to the aforesaid judgement. -14- 27. Before the Executing Court on 7.12.2015 (page 23 of the paper book of CWP No. 72 of 2018), in execution petition respondent No.4 had categorically stated that petitioner has been reinstated, even though no grant-in-aid was being received from respondent No.2. Based on the same, in contempt proceedings bearing COPC No.241 of 2017, disposed of on 30.10.2017 (page 15 of the paper book of CWP No. 72 of 2018), based on order dated 7.12.2015 passed in Execution Petition No.1 of 2015, contempt proceedings had been got closed, despite being aware of the fact that the services of the petitioner stood dispensed with vide Annexure P-7 dated 31.3.2016 (impugned order). 28. Respondent No.3-Institute has less than 200 students. In view of staffing pattern prescribed in terms of notification dated 29.06.2012, there is no post of Mali. Immediately before termination on 31.03.2014, the petitioner was working as a Peon. The termination challenged was challenged in CWP No.4676 of 2014-H. Vide judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed in CWP No.4676 of 2014-H respondent No.2 was ordered to release grant-in-aid and on receipt of the same, the petitioner was ordered to be re-engaged. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was re- -15- engaged as a Mali, whereas it is the case of respondents No.3 and 4 that there is no post of Mali. Further in contempt proceedings COPC No.241 of 2017, which was closed on 30.10.2017, the court is not informed of the fact that the petitioner has once again been disengaged on 31.03.2016. Rather the Court is told that the judgment dated 13.10.2014 stands complied with in view of the order dated 13.07.2015, passed in Execution Petition No.1 of 2015. 29. As has been stated supra in terms of Clause 35.4 of Notification dated 23.07.2012, after 29.06.2012 (Annexure R4/1 page 37 of the paper book of CWP No.72 of 2017), after 29.06.2012, the respondent No.3, based on student strength was entitled for two posts of Peons and two posts of Chowkidar. Once respondent Nos.3 and 4 use Notification dated 23.07.2012 to justify non-existence of the post of a mali/gardener in the approved staffing pattern, they cannot wriggle out of the staffing pattern approved therein qua them as contained in clause 35.4 therein. Moreso when nothing has been placed on record by respondents No.3 and 4 to justify departure from the professed norm as laid down in clause 35.4. -16- 30. From the reply filed to the writ petition and affidavit filed in compliance of order dated 29.4.2022, it is evident that against the post of two Peons, one Shri Subhash Chandra was working in the respondent No.3-Institute till 31.03.2019. After his retirement, the said post was filled on 16.03.2020 by engaging one Shri Rajesh Kumar. Insofar as the other post of Peon was concerned, the same had fallen vacant on 30.03.2012 on retirement of one Shri Kashmir Singh. Against the said post, one Shri Vishal Kumar had been engaged on an outsourced basis since 01.01.2015. His services had been discontinued. Thereafter, one Vijay Kumar had been engaged on 05.08.2017 against the post so vacated by Vishal Kumar. 31. Qua the two posts of Chowkidars, one Shri Dilbagh Singh had been engaged as a Chowkidar. He stood retired on 31.03.2019. The post so vacated has been filled on outsourced basis by one Shri Atul Kumar since 06.09.2019. Insofar as the second post of Chowkidar is concerned, the same has been lying vacant as neither in the reply nor in the affidavit filed in pursuance to order dated 29.04.2022 have any specific details been given qua the incumbent who occupied the post. 32. Hence, in the aforesaid backdrop, that at the time of passing of impugned order dated 31.03.2016 -17- (Annexure P-7), one post of Chowkidar was lying vacant and the petitioner could have easily been considered against the same. Throughout the pendency of the present petition, the said post has been lying vacant. The judgment relied upon by respondent Nos.3 and 4 1997 (4) SCC 88, State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Ajay Kumar, wherein it has been held that for appointment of a person, there must be a post, rather than helping the respondents, helps the petitioner in the facts of the case at hand, as there exists a vacant post of a Chowkidar in the case at hand, wherein the petitioner can be appointed. 33. For the aforesaid reasons impugned Annexure P-7 i.e letter dated 31-03-2016 is quashed the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to forthwith re-instate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary which shall be paid within two months from the passing of the judgement. If the arrears of salary are not paid within the aforesaid period than the same shall be paid with simple interest @ 6% till the date of payment. 34. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th June, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)