2025:HHC:29781 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5695 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.9.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jatinder Singh and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioners herein, who are working as Assistant Professors (College Cadre), are aggrieved of action of the respondents in as much as they have been granted benefit of regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2014 instead of 1.1.2008 onwards, on which date, petitioners had completed eight years continuous service as contract lecturers. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that in the year 1995, Government of Himachal Pradesh framed comprehensive policy for appointments of teachers on contract basis. Pursuant to aforesaid policy decision, Principals of government colleges located in the State of Himachal Pradesh were directed to fill up the vacant post of lecturers (College Cadre) on contract basis as per terms and 2025:HHC:29781 - 2 - conditions contained in policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh vide memo No. PA-DE-4/95-CHB dated 17.4.1995. As per procedure provided for appointment of contract lecturers, intimation of vacancies of lecturers (College Cadre) was to be furnished by the Principal of the college concerned to the Director (Higher Education), who further had to forward the same to the Joint/Additional Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. After approval from Government of Himachal Pradesh, number of vacancies were to notified from the employments exchanges of the area concerned, enabling it to sponsor the names of the qualifying candidates as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules for regular lecturers or as per comprehensive policy for appointment of contract teachers. Interviews were to be conducted in order to select the qualified candidates as Lecturer (College Cadre) on contract basis by duly constituted selection committee, which included Principal of the College, Senior Lecturer of the subject concerned and Senior Most Lecturer of the College. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid decision, taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, petitioners herein, who were fully eligible and qualified, came to be appointed as Lecturers (College Cadre) on contract basis in the year starting from 1996 to 2002 respectively, as detailed in para-7 of the petition. After their being appointed on contract basis as detailed hereinabove, petitioners kept on discharging 2025:HHC:29781 - 3 - their duties diligently to the utmost satisfaction of the employer, but yet they were not considered for regularization in terms of police of regularization of contract employees formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh in 2008, wherein it came to be decided that contractual employees, who have served the department for more than eight years on contract basis, shall be entitled to regularization. 4. However, subsequently as per policy of 2009, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, recommended the names of 22 eligible contract lecturers to be regularized vide communication dated 8.6.2009, out of which, some of the petitioners named at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 to 8, 8, 15, 17, 19 to 22, respectively, were also recommended (Annexure P-8 Colly.). Before services of aforesaid 22 eligible candidates including petitioners could be regularized, notification dated 9.9.2008 alongwith correspondence dated 8.6.2009 came to be laid challenge by way of CWP No. 2336 of 2009-E, titled as Dr. Anjana Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters), before this court. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.4.2013, allowed the petition filed by afore petitioner (Annexure P-9) with the observation that notification dated 9.9.2008 and further communication dated 8.6.2009, could not override the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. However while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, court categorically observed in the concluding paragraph that respondent- 2025:HHC:29781 - 4 - State was expected to make appointments and regularize the services of private respondents according to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. 5. Taking note of aforesaid observation made in concluding para of the judgment passed in Dr. Anjana Thakur’s case (supra), respondent-State in consultation of the Law Department, issued notifications dated 14.7.2014 and 28.7.2014 (Annexures P-10 and P- 11), vide which the services of the Assistant Professors (College Cadre)/ petitioners working on contract basis over a long period of time, were regularized, however after two years of issuance of aforesaid communications dated 14.7.2014 and 28.7.2014, respondents issued common show cause notice to all the petitioners vide letter dated 18.4.2016 (Annexure P-12) to show cause as to why the order of regularization of their service be not withdrawn. Aforesaid show cause notice, came to be issued on account of filing of contempt petition in this court on the ground that notifications dated 14.7.2014 and 28.7.2024 are in violation of mandate contained in the case of Dr. Anjana Thakur (supra). 6. Before any decision could be taken in COPC No. 307 of 2014, same came to be disposed of on the ground that Show Cause Notices, already stand issued to the persons, who have been allegedly given regularization in violation of judgment passed in Anjana Thakur’s case. Petitioners herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with 2025:HHC:29781 - 5 - issuance of letter dated 18.4.2016 (Annexure P-12) approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application, but same subsequently came to be transferred to this Court on account of abolishment of the Tribunal and was registered as CWPOA No. 8130 of 2019, which came to be allowed vide Judgment dated 13.9.2022 (Annexure P-16 colly.). In the afore judgment, this Court arrived at a conclusion that regularization of the petitioners as well as similarly situate persons is not in violation of mandate contained in Anjana Thakur’s case, rather same has been made pursuant to policy decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby it decided to regularize the services of all contractual lecturers, who have been rendering their services for years together. In nutshell, this Court set aside the letters dated 20/18.8.2016 and upheld notification dated 14.7.2014, whereby petitioners herein were ordered to be regularized. 7. Similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court while passing judgment dated 4.11.2022 in CWPOA No. 3195 of 2019, titled as Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. It is not in dispute that both the afore judgments have attained finality because LPA No. 128 of 2024, having been filed by the respondent-State against judgment dated 13.9.2022, was dismissed. It is quite apparent from the facts, as noticed herein above, that as of 2025:HHC:29781 - 6 - today, petitioners stand regularized as Lecturer (School Cadre) but w.e.f. year 2014. 8. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners duly assisted by Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, is that since petitioners herein came to be regularized pursuant to policy decision taken by Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein it came to be decided that contractual employees, who have served on contract basis for a period of more than eight years shall be regularized, petitioners herein who were appointed on contract basis 1996 onwards as detailed in para-7 of the petition are also required to be regularized from the date they had completed eight years service on contract basis. 9. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State have filed reply, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, but yet an attempt has been made to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioners on the ground that they are not entitled to seek regularization in terms of policy of regularization, notified in the year 2008/09 rather their regularization was done pursuant to policy decision taken by Government of Himachal Pradesh after passing of order dated 11.4.2013 in Anjana Thakur’s case. 2025:HHC:29781 - 7 - 10. While referring to notification dated 28.7.2014, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that services of the petitioners were regularized from the afore date on account of the fact that they have been rendering their services on contract basis for a long period. Mr. Kahol further submitted that otherwise also, petitioners are estopped from claiming regularization from the date they had completed eight years service on contract basis in view of judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 8130 of 2019, wherein notification dated 14.7.2014, thereby granting regularization to the petitioners w.e.f. afore date, came to be upheld. Mr. Kahol, further contended that at no point of time, petitioners ever laid challenge to the afore judgment in the superior court of law and as such, same has attained finality qua them. He further submitted that since petitioners remained silent for more than two years after passing of afore judgment, their plea of regularization from the date they had completed eight years service, deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 11. Mr. Shreedhar, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners, while fairly admitting factum with regard to passing of judgment dated 13.7.2022 passed in CWPOA No. 810 of 2019, whereby notification dated 14.7.2014, came to be upheld vehemently argued that till the passing of judgment dated 13.9.2022, there was no occasion, if any, for the petitioners to stake their claim for 2025:HHC:29781 - 8 - regularization from the date they completed eight years service on contract basis because in the afore petition, they had laid challenge to show cause notice as well as withdrawal of their regularization order dated 14.7.2014. He submitted that though at the first instance, petitioners herein were granted regularization in the year 2014, but since in the year 2016, their order of regularization was withdrawn and ultimately their right to regularization from due date, came to be crystallized with the passing of judgment dated 13.7.2022 in CWP No. 8130 of 2019, there was no occasion, if any, for them to approach this court prior to filing of the petition at hand in the year 2024. 12. Admittedly, in the case at hand, pleadings if read in their entity, as adduced by the petitioners, clearly suggest that they have been working on contract basis w.e.f 1996 onwards and while they were working on contract basis, Government of Himachal Pradesh formulated policy of regularization in 2008, thereby deciding that all contractual employees who have completed more than eight years service on contract basis shall be regularized. 13. Though in terms of afore policy, proposal was made for regularization for the petitioners from the date they had completed eight years service on contract basis, but before it could be finalized, dictum came to be issued in Anjana Thakur’s case i.e. CWP No. 2336 of 2009-E that notification dated 9.9.2008 and further communication dated 8.6.2009, whereby decision to regularize the contractual period 2025:HHC:29781 - 9 - after having completed eight years was taken could not override the rules framed under Article 309 of the constitution. Since Anjana Thakur’s case was filed at the proposal stage of policy, Division Bench of this Court otherwise had no occasion to quash the policy and as such, it rightly observed at that juncture that notification dated 9.9.2008 and further communication dated 8.6.2009, could not override the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and ultimately, it concluded the judgment by observing that respondent- State was expected to make appointment and regularize the services of private respondents according to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Government of Himachal Pradesh taking note of afore observation made in Anjana Thakur’s case issued notification dated 14.7.2014 and 28.7.2014, regularizing services of the Assistant Professor (College Cadre) working on contract basis for a long period. 14. Though in the case at hand, names of the petitioners were recommended for regularization from the date they had completed eight years service by way of correspondence dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure P-8), but on account of litigation as detailed herein above, same ultimately came to be finalized in the year 2014. 15. Now grouse of the petitioners, as clearly emerges from the pleadings, is that once they were eligible to be regularized w.e.f. 2009 in terms of policy decision taken by the Government, there was no 2025:HHC:29781 - 10 - occasion, if any, for the respondents to regularize them w.e.f. 14.7.2014. It appears that on account of aforesaid decision to regularize the petitioners w.e.f. 14.7.2014, number of persons junior to the petitioners, who stood regularized in the year 2009 pursuant to policy decision of Government dated 2009, have become senior to the petitioners. Since notification dated 14.7.2014, thereby regularizing the petitioners from afore date, was in favour of the petitioners, there was otherwise no occasion, for them to lay challenge to the same in the competent court of law. Moreover, afore order was though passed in favour of the petitioners, but same was withdrawn in the year 2016 and ultimately, right flowing from afore communication came to be crystallized in favour of the petitioners with the passing of judgment dated 23.9.2022 passed in CWPOA No. 3181 of 2019, which has attained finality. Judgment in afore case was passed on 23.9.2022 and petition at hand thereafter for regularization from the date petitioners completed eight years services came to be filed in this court on 24.5.2024 i.e. within 1½ years of passing of judgment dated 23.9.2022. 16. At this juncture, it is also apt to take note of the fact that after passing of judgment 23.9.2022, respondents filed LPA No. 128 of 2024, which ultimately came to be disposed of on 21.5.2024, whereafter petitioners immediately approached this court for grant of reliefs, as prayed for, in the instant petition. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, 2025:HHC:29781 - 11 - learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that decision to regularize the services of the petitioners came to be taken in the year 2014, but this court is not persuaded to agree with him for the reason that proposal to regularize the services of the petitioners was actually made in the year 2009, but before same could be given effect to, writ in Anjana Thakur’s case came to be filed before this court, as a result thereof, proposal to regularize the petitioners in terms of policy of 2009 got delayed. After disposal of Ajana Thakur’s case in the year 2013, respondents issued regularization but w.e.f. 14.7.2014. Though petitioners herein were aggrieved of that order for the reason that they were entitled to regularization from the date they had completed eight years service from the date of their initial engagement on contract basis, but before they could lay challenge to the same, afore order came to be withdrawn and ultimately their right to claim regularization from the date they completed eight years service was crystallized with the passing of judgment dated 23.9.2022. 17. Since it is not in dispute, rather apparent from record that proposal to regularize the petitioners from the date they had completed eight years service from the date of their initial engagement on contract basis was made in the year 2009 coupled with the fact that ultimately, petitioners taking note of long services rendered by the petitioners as well as similarly situate persons itself decided to regularize their services, may be w.e.f 14.7.2014, prayer made by the 2025:HHC:29781 - 12 - petitioners for regularization in terms of proposal dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure P-8), deserves to be allowed. 18. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the petitioners as Assistant Professor (College Cadre) from the date they had actually completed eight years continuous service as contract Lecturers from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis as detailed in para 7 of the petition. Though petitioners in terms of order of regularization passed, if any, in terms of instant judgment, shall be granted benefit of regularization from due date as ordered herein above, but they shall not be entitled for monetary benefits qua afore period, rather such period shall be counted towards seniority as well as other service benefits including retiral benefits. 19. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. September 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge