2025:HHC:29664-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2909 of 2023 Decided on: 29.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Naresh Verma ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner Naresh Verma, has come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P- 15 i.e. office order dated 12.04.2023. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to give the relaxation for fictional breaks w.e.f. 22.11.2003 to 16.08.2013 and further directed to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 10 years of service from the initial date of appointment i.e. 22.11.2003 by giving seniority and continuity with all consequential benefit in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Para Teacher [PET]-Physical Education Teacher in GMS Multhan, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra under complex GSSS 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:29664-DB - 2 - Lohardi on 22.11.2003 and served as Para Teacher till 08.07.2004. Upon joining of regular incumbent his services were disengaged on 08.07.2004 and he remained out of job, on account of termination till 20.08.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner was again appointed as Physical Education Teacher by PTA [GIA] of GSSS Lohardi i.e. another school on 21.08.2006 and he served in said school till 16.08.2013. It is averred that petitioner was again appointed as Para Teacher [Physical Education Teacher] on 16.08.2013 in GHS Ustehar under complex GSSS, Baijnath, Tehsil Baijnath in District Kangra on 16.08.2013 and he served as such in said school till 16.08.2023. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the then existing policy, the services of Para Teachers including the petitioner were regularized on completion of 10 years of continuous service as Para Teacher on 16.08.2023. 3. By way of the instant petition, Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a communication dated 09.10.2020, (Annexure P-10), that pursuant to CWP No.2326 of 2017 and earlier CWP No.9892 of 2014-J, titled as Virender Thakur versus State of H.P. 2025:HHC:29664-DB - 3 - and others, the period of similar break(s) was condoned and entire period was counted as continuous service, in case of Virender Thakur (supra), as referred to above. It is in this backdrop that Learned Senior Counsel states that he is seeking parity and similar treatment as granted to Sh. Virender Thakur, [as in Annexure P-10] by condoning the break given to him from 09.07.2004 to 20.08.2006 and after condoning the break the entire period may be treated as continuous service since 22.11.2003 towards eligibility and for considering him for regularization. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 17.10.2023 of Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh and the operative part of Reply-Affidavit reads as under:- “2. That it is submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged as PET under Para Teacher Policy 2003 on 12.11.2003 however his services were terminated on joining of regular hand on 08.07.2004. 3. That the petitioner was again engaged on 21.08.2006 under PTA Rules and was terminated on 16.08.2013. 4. That the petitioner was re-engaged on the directions of the Hon’ble Court in LPA No.296/2012 dated 04.07.2012 and he rejoined his services as Para Teacher on 16.08.2013. 5. That the petitioner has worked under two separate policies and that too for different time 2025:HHC:29664-DB - 4 - period. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner joined his services as Para Teacher on 16.08.2013 that is after the lapse of 9 years during which he has served under the different policy w.e.f. 21.08.2006 to 16.08.2013. Hence, his period has been counted from 16.08.2013 and his services have been regularized accordingly after completion of 10 years of regular services. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the relaxation for condonation of break in service w.e.f. 22.11.2003 to 16.08.2013.” 5. In the background of Reply-Affidavit, Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner was engaged as Para Teacher-PET on 22.11.2003 but his services were terminated on joining as a regular incumbent on 08.07.2004 and he was again engaged as PTA [GIA] from 21.08.2006 to 16.08.2013 and then as Para Teacher from 16.06.2013 to 16.08.2023. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the Para Teacher Policy, 2003 is totally different from the PTA Policy, issued by the State Authorities. It is further averred in the Reply-Affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of condonation of break period from July, 2004 to August, 2006, as claimed by the petitioner. 6. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder reiterating the claim as well as the stand in the writ petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that he confines his claim only for 2025:HHC:29664-DB - 5 - examining his case for parity with Virender Thakur, as referred to in Communication dated 09.10.2020, Annexure P-10. 8. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Learned Senior Counsel on instructions of Mr. Hemant Thakur, Assisting Counsel states that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondents-State Authorities are directed to examine the case on analogy on which benefits have been given to Virender Thakur for condoning the break period from 09.07.2004 to 20.08.2006, as referred to in Communication dated 09.10.2020, Annexure P-10. [Statement Taken on Record]. 9. Learned State Counsel does not opposes the prayer for examining the matter after taking into account the factual matrix, material on record and the applicable norms and by considering the matter on all available grounds in accordance with law. 10. Taking into account the limited prayer made before this Court by the Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, and by leaving all questions open and without going into the merits and rival claims and contentions herein, [including admissibility/ 2025:HHC:29664-DB - 6 - inadmissibility of claim, as per Annexure P-10 or otherwise] and as prayed for, this Court directs the State Authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law; and then to pass an appropriate orders in the matter, within two months from today. 11. Needless to say that this Court has not adverted to the merits in any manner, which shall be examined by the State Authorities in accordance with law. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 29th August, 2025 [himani]