IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6817 of 2022 Reserved on:-08.07.2026 Decided on 28th July 2026 Priyavart Nawani …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned Annexure-P10, dated 20th September, 2022, issued by respondent No.3, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as Orientation & Mobility Instructor at Composite Regional Centre for Persons with Disabilities, Sundernagar; (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Orientation & Mobility Instructor w.e.f. the year 2010/2011 with all consequential benefits; 2 (iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to not to treat the period with effect from the issuance of impugned order dated 20.09.2022 upto the date of reinstatement/re-engagement/reappointment of the petitioner as break in service.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, in terms of Annexure P-1, employment notification bearing No.NIVH/CRC- S/2005, applications were invited by the Composite Regional Centre for Persons with Disabilities, Sundernagar (“CRC Sundernagar”) for various posts advertised therein, including the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor. 3. As the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria, he applied for the post in issue. Vide Annexure P-2, communication dated 25.11.2005, the petitioner was offered appointment against the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor on contract basis for two years initially in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 at CRC Sundernagar. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter his services were continued by way of extension on contractual appointment and his pay band etc. was also increased by granting him annual increments etc. 3 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that after serving the CRC for 17 years with an unblemished record, in terms of Annexure P-10 i.e., order dated 20.09.2022, his services have been terminated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as an Orientation and Mobility Instructor after following due process. He was appointed against a sanctioned post after undergoing a proper selection procedure. He submitted that the very fact that the services of the petitioner were continued for 17 years demonstrates that there was an element of permanency with the post attached. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-8 appended with the writ petition and submitted that in terms of the said information which was supplied by the Officer In-charge of CRC Sundernagar, Mandi to Section Officer Administration, NIEPVD Dehradun on the subject "Submission of Information sought by Prime Minister's Office for Review of Autonomous Bodies", the staff strength of CRC Sundernagar was apprised. In terms of this information, the staff strength was stated to be 52, out of which 20 was sanctioned regular 4 strength, 30 was contractual strength and 2 outsourced employees. Learned counsel by referring to this Annexure P-8 submitted that the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor was mentioned in this communication as a regular post, which was further reflected as filled by the present petitioner. He thus submitted that in light of this fact, the act of the respondents, at the first instance to not regularize the services of the petitioner after having put in almost two decades of service against the post, in issue which in terms of Annexure P-8, was a regular post was an arbitrary act and the termination of the service of the petitioner in this particular backdrop is not sustainable. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the petitioner was appointed against the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor with CRC, Sundernagar, in terms of the advertisement issued, in which, it was categorically mentioned that the appointment was on contractual basis. He submitted that the petitioner accepted the appointment knowing fully well that the same was on contractual basis. He further submitted that the engagement in CRC Sundernagar was only for a limited period, on need basis 5 and as per the requirements of the project concerned. He stated that this practice is common across all ministries, Departments, and Institutions. He further submitted that as the petitioner was selected and appointed on contract basis as per the need of the initiative concerned and for a fixed term duration on contractual basis without any assurance or promise that his services would be regularized or that his services would not be terminated, the petitioner cannot now challenge his termination. He further submitted that otherwise also, in light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary of State versus Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner did not have any right to seek his regularization or challenge his termination from service. 8. In the backdrop of said factual matrix, when the case was heard by this Court on 25.09.2025, the following order was passed:- “Petitioner herein is aggrieved of non- regularization despite his having put in more than twenty years of service. Careful perusal of submission of information sought by Prime Minister’s office for review of the autonomous bodies (Annexure P-8), this Court finds that petitioner herein has been shown to be regular employee of the respondents. If it is so, there is no 6 reason, if any, for the petitioner to seek relief as has been detailed herein above. As per aforesaid document, petitioner herein has been working on regular basis, but perusal of order dated 20.9.2022, suggests that petitioner, who was working against the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor has been removed. Once vide communication dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-8), wherein certain information came to be supplied to the Prime Minister’s Office, petitioner has been shown to be working against the regular post that too on regular basis, it is not understood that how impugned action is sustainable under law. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Additional Advocate General prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to have instructions. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that petitioner is being paid regular pay-scale as revised from time to time alongwith benefits. List on 14.11.2025.” 9. In response thereto, a supplementary affidavit was filed by Director of National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities, relevant portion whereof is quoted herein below:- “That it is respectfully submitted that Respondent No. 4 issued an advertisement dated 05.08.2005 inviting applications for various posts on deputation/contract basis, including the post of Orientation & Mobility Instructor. A copy of the said advertisement is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. That the Petitioner was offered appointment on a contract basis for an initial period of two years in the pay scale of ₹5000-150-8000, vide offer letter dated 25.11.2005 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition). The Petitioner duly accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the said offer, pursuant to which Office Order No. CRC/P-18 dated 03.01.2006 was issued, 7 appointing the Petitioner as Orientation & Mobility Instructor (Contract Basis) with effect from 01.12.2005. It is further submitted that the Petitioner's contractual engagement was extended from time to time on the same terms and conditions as contained in the original offer-letter. That with reference to the observations made by this Hon'ble Court regarding Annexure P-8 annexed with the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the said Annexure reflects the petitioner as a regular employee. However, the term "regular post" used therein pertains solely to posts sanctioned with approved pay scales and admissible allowances under the sanctioned structure of the Composite Regional Center (respondent No. 3), and does not denote the employment status of the incumbent. That the expression "regular" in this context was intended to signify that the post formed part of the sanctioned establishment. The incumbents, however, were appointed on a contractual basis in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the relevant advertisement. These appointments were initially made for a period of one year against sanctioned posts with approved pay scales, and were subsequently extended from time to time under the same contractual terms. That in light of the above clarification, it is respectfully submitted that the information contained in Annexure P-8 may not be construed as evidence of regular appointment The respondents, in their reply to the writ petitions, consistently maintained that the petitioners' engagements were purely contractual in nature, without any entitlement, assurance, or legitimate expectation of regularization or appointment to substantive posts. That it is further submitted that the mere extension of regular pay scales to these contractual appointees does not confer upon them any right to regularization. It is pertinent to mention that, since the year 2022, the petitioners have continued in service 8 solely by virtue of interim stay orders granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That it is most respectfully prayed that keeping in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the present supplementary affidavit may kindly be taken on record and information contained in Annexure P-8 may not be construed as evidence of regular appointment in the interest of justice and fair play.” 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 11. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention at this stage that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in terms of order dated 28.09.2022, was pleased to stay the operation of order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-10), in terms whereof, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Thus, as a result thereof, the petitioner still continues to be in the service of the respondents. 12. The facts as stand narrated hereinabove, demonstrate that the petitioner was appointed as an Instructor against the post of Orientation and Mobility Inspector in response to Annexure P-1. 9 13. In terms of Annexure P-1, employment notification was issued, inviting applications on deputation/contract basis for Composite Regional Center for Persons with Disabilities established at Sundernagar, Himachal Pradesh. Advertisement Annexure P-1 was issued in the year 2005 when the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 were in force. 14. The Composite Regional Center for Persons with Disabilities was established by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, under the administrative control of NIVH, Dehradun. Thus, it is evident that the establishment of this center was to give effect to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 15. It is a matter of record that after appointment of the petitioner, as such, on contract basis for two years initially as per Annexure P-2, he continued to serve as such till his services were terminated and thereafter also, he is continuing to serve as such on the strength of the interim order passed in his favour by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 10 16. Documents appended with the petition also demonstrate that from time to time, annual increment was sanctioned to the Officers/Staff of CRC Sundernagar by the Competent Authority and this also included the petitioner, who is reflected in the orders of grant of annual increment as Rehabilitation Officer. 17. It is also a matter of record that the MACP benefit has also been given to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure P-6 appended with the petition and in terms of Annexure P-7, consequent upon the revision of the pay scale, approval was accorded by the Competent Authority to revise the pay of the Officers/Staff of CRC Sundernagar as per the Revised Pay Rules of 2016 and the pay of the petitioner was also revised/re-fixed. 18. It is also a matter of record that in the year 2020, when information was sought by the Prime Minister's Office in the course of review of Autonomous Bodies qua the sanctioned regular strength of the staff therein, in terms of Annexure P-8, the post being occupied by the petitioner was mentioned as a regular post and the petitioner was reflected therein as serving 11 against the said post. There was no mention against the name of the petitioner that he was serving on contract basis etc. or that element of permanency was not there with the said post. 19. The very fact that the petitioner was serving against the post from 2005 upto 2022, when the impugned order was passed is demonstrative of the fact that there was permanency attached with the post in issue. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the respondents that the Center, in which, the petitioner was appointed, was ordered to be wound up etc. The above thus clearly demonstrates that the act of termination of the service of the petitioner was an arbitrary act. 20. Incidentally, it is not as if the petitioner was appointed against the post through a back-door entry. He participated in an open process, on the basis of an advertisement issued by the respondents, in which, many others also participated. He was recruited on the basis of a selection process. He was recruited as he faced the selection process successfully, as he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria which was mentioned in the employment notification. 12 21. Therefore, in these circumstances, the issuance of the impugned order by mentioning that his services are no longer required and therefore, were being terminated, is not sustainable in law. 22. The order of termination is a non-speaking order; it does not reflect any reason as to why the services of the petitioner were being terminated after 17 years of service with the Center. It is not the stand of the respondents that this was on account of some misconduct on the part of the petitioner etc. The petitioner, having rendered 17 valuable years of his service to the Center, did not deserve such treatment. In fact, in light of the fact that the petitioner was serving in the Department for 17 years, which was demonstrative of the fact that the post against which the petitioner was serving was a regular post, as is also otherwise evident from Annexure P-8, the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized by the respondents. 23. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 13 24. Honorable Supreme Court of India in Jaggo versus Union of India and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, has been pleased to hold as under:- “………...10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings. 12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 14 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.” In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is imperative for Government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employees morale. By ensuring fair employment 15 practices, Government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. 25. In Dharam Singh & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 (2025 INSC 998), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “……...17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and 16 engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "adhocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 26. In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 129 (2026 INSC 99), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is thus apposite to 17 advert to the principles governing the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 16 SCC 598 wherein it was held as follows: - "63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation: 63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings; 63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is. a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis. 64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation. jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field." It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the expectation with which such contractual employees continue in the service of the State. The repeated conduct of the employer- State in expressing confidence in their performance and consistently granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long and continuous service would receive further recognition. 13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily be extended to persons whose 18 appointments are temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows: - "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the reievant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary. contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that the bar against invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with the extant rules. Consequently, where such engagement is made after following a due and lawful selection procedure, there is no absolute bar in law preventing such employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements: 13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants' engagement was likely to be granted. 19 13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints. 13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State's decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the symbiotic- relationship between the appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the appellants' experience and institutional familiarity, while the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any departure from a long- standing practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order. 13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. 13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of "part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of 20 India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part- time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to 21 persuade ourselves to accept the respondent- State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, bruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual lauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the ate to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of me Constitution.” 27. Thus, in terms of the above-mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, also the act of the respondents of terminating the services of the petitioner, rather than regularizing his services, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 28. It is again reiterated that the petitioner having been appointed against the post by way of an open competition, having faced the scrutiny of the selection committee, as he was fulfilling the educational qualifications and thereafter having worked for 17 years with the Department did not deserve termination, more so, when there was no allegation of any misconduct, etc., against him. He was entitled for regularization 22 of services as none can be allowed to be continued in service in perpetuity on contract basis without there being any certainty of the permanency of the job. 29. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexure P-10 dated 20.09.2022 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as Orientation and Mobility Instructor at Composite Regional Centre for Persons with Disabilities at Sundernagar. Respondents are further directed to regularize the services of the petitioner against the said post as from the date of this judgment prospectively with all consequential benefits. 30. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2026 (Vinod)