IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8085 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Guleria …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief: “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent University to place the matter of the petitioner before the Executive Council of the respondent University within a time bound manner in terms of the order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent University, since in view of Annexure P-5, neither any approval has been taken till date nor the matter of the petitioner has been placed before the Executive Council with full particulars for granting upgradation to the post of Head Draughtsman, as the said benefit of upgradation has been given to the counterparts of the petitioner in the year 2020.” 2. Petitioner herein was engaged on daily wage basis as Tracer/Draughtsman in Design Cell of the respondent-University on 21.09.1991. Though in November 1996, Government of Himachal 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Pradesh formulated the regularization Policy of ad hoc appointee, providing therein that those ad hoc appointees, who have completed 5 years of ad hoc service, shall be regularized, however, services of the petitioner were not regularized at relevant time in terms of afore Policy, but on 25.09.1998, services of the petitioner and similarly situate persons were taken on ad hoc basis. On 01.01.2005, respondent-University issued office order, whereby services of the petitioner along with other similar situate persons came to be regularized. Though petitioner was initially appointed in 1991 and thereafter was appointed on ad hoc basis on 25.09.1998, but his services were regularized with immediate effect from 01.01.2005. Subsequently on representation made by affected persons, respondent-University relaxed the ad hoc policy qua some of similarly situate persons and regularized their services as Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 31.10.2002, however, such relaxation was not extended to the petitioner. 3. Since despite there being repeated representation, relaxation was not given to the petitioner, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.5533 of 2020, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 18.07.2024, with the direction to Registrar of respondent-University to take final call with regard to grievance, as -3- has been raised by the petitioner in terms of hearing, which was given to him, on the basis of representation filed by him. 4. Pursuant to afore order passed by this Court, respondent- University vide order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-5), decided to place the case of the petitioner before the Finance Committee/Executive Council along with case of Sandesh Kumar and Baldev Rana, after obtaining the approval of the Vice Chancellor. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though afore order was passed on 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-5), but till date, neither approval of the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor has been obtained, nor matter has been placed before the Finance Committee/Executive Council, as a result whereof, petitioner, despite his being eligible, is suffering continuously on account of non-upgradation to the post of Head Draughtsman. 6. Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondent-University, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-University states that in terms of order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-5), matter of the petitioner for upgradation to the post, occupied by the petitioner, shall be placed before the Finance Committee/Executive Council, after taking -4- approval of the Vice Chancellor, within a period of two weeks. He further states that once approval is granted by the Vice Chancellor, matter shall be placed before the Finance Committee/Executive Council for upgradation, if any. 7. Consequently, in view of afore fair statement made by learned counsel representing the respondent-University, this Court sees no impediment in disposing of the present petition with the direction to the respondent-University to ensure that approval for placing the matter for upgradation is taken from Vice Chancellor within a period of one week and thereafter, in any eventuality, matter is placed before the Finance Committee/Executive Committee, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Once necessary orders/approval are/is given by the Finance Committee, matter shall be placed before the Executive Council, without any delay. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 30, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)