IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5267 of 2023 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Uttam Ram & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following relief:- “ That the respondents department may kindly be directed to regularize the petitioners as per the existing policy of 2017 contained as Annexure P-5 for contractual employees and as and when the petitioners have completed requisite 3 years of services, alongwith monetary benefits and other consequential benefits, seniority etc.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Government of Himachal Pradesh announced to start a new scheme, namely “Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna” for strengthening the veterinary services in the rural areas of the State. Pursuant to aforesaid policy decision, Government decided to open veterinary dispensaries in 1150 Panchayats of the State, in a phased manner, where no facility of veterinary assistance was available. As per aforesaid decision, Government decided to appoint one Gram Panchayat Assistant in each Gram Panchayat. In terms of aforesaid policy decision, petitioners alongwith other similarly situate persons, came to be appointed as Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistants (for short “GPVAs”) in various Panchayats. Under the said policy/scheme, only such persons were appointed against the post in question who had completed two years Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. Though, they were appointed by Panchayat Raj Department, but paid fixed honorarium of Rs. 5000/- per month by the Gram Panchayat concerned from the grant provided by the Himachal Pradesh Livestock Development Board. The Animal Husbandry Department provided medicines and necessary instruments to the veterinary dispensaries, whereas day-to-day management of veterinary dispensaries was 3 entrusted to the concerned Gram Panchayat. Under aforesaid scheme, Gram Panchayat was empowered to terminate the services of the GPVAs, if the work and conduct of the GPVAs was not satisfactory. 3. Subsequently, vide Notification dated 19.09.2017, ‘Mukhya Mantri Pashudhan Yojna’ came to be amended, in terms whereof, GPVA’s were to be recruited and paid honorarium by the Animal Husbandry Department directly, instead of the Rural Development Department. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioners were appointed as GPVA’s under the policy in the year, 2012 and since then they have been continuously working. In the year 2017, State Government decided to convert the services of 530 GPVA’s, who had been working for the last five years and were in receipt of monthly honorarium of Rs.7000/- per month under the scheme of ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’, on contract basis by extending the benefit of contract policy from the date of issue of orders (Annexure R-1). 4. Vide Notification dated 06.07.2018, Government decided that all GPVAs, who had completed five years of service working under the ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’, 4 may be brought on contract (Annexure R-2). Petitioners herein, who had been working continuously for more than five years were brought on contract by the Department of Animal Husbandry, are aggrieved of on account of their non- regularization. 5. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that though in terms of policy decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization of contract employees, a number of similarly situate persons, who were directly appointed by the Department under ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ have been regularized, whereas petitioners, who under same scheme i.e. ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ were recruited /appointed by the Panchayati Raj Department, are being denied regularization despite there being a policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 6. 6. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No.1 to 4 have filed their reply through respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh, wherein the facts, as have been taken note 5 hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioners on the ground that Notification dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure R-2), whereby decision was taken to bring all GPVAs, who had completed five years of service under ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ on contract, was withdrawn vide Notification dated 04.08.2018 (Annexure R-3), keeping in view Finance Department’s Notification No. Fin (PR)-B(7)-64/2010 dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure R-4). Respondents have further stated in their reply that all the GPVAs, who had completed five years of service, were paid honorarium equivalent to the fixed emoluments being paid to a Veterinary Pharmacist on contact basis and as such, petitioners have no right to claim parity with Veterinary Pharmacists appointed on contract against the sanctioned posts as per R&P Rules. 7. In nutshell, the case of the respondents, as has been sought to be projected through the reply as well as by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is that petitioners at first instance were never appointed against any sanctioned post and they were also not appointed by Animal Husbandry Department, rather their initial recruitment was made though the 6 Panchayati Raj Department and they were engaged on fixed salary. Learned Additional Advocate General has further stated that since R& P Rules for the post of Veterinary Pharmacists, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) in the Department of Animal Husbandry, issued vide Notification dated 21.12.2018, provide for 44% by direct recruitment on batch-wise basis from amongst Panchayat Veterinary Assistants on a regular basis or by recruitment on contract basis, as the case may be ; 44% by direct recruitment through the concerned recruitment agency i.e. Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, on regular basis or by recruitment on contract basis as the case may be; and 12% by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment through the concerned recruiting agency, petitioners are not entitled to seek regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 8. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material adduced on record, this Court finds that ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ was announced by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the year 2012, whereby Government itself decided to open veterinary dispensaries in those 1150 Panchayats of the State where no 7 facility of veterinary assistance was available. While such scheme was implemented, GPVAs were appointed, though not against sanctioned posts, but pursuant to policy decision taken by the Government. Under the scheme/policy, only such candidates, who had completed two years’ veterinary pharmacist training Course, were given appointment against the post in question by the Panchayat Raj Department. Initially, a fixed honorarium of Rs. 5000/- per month was paid by the concerned Gram Panchayat from the grant provided by the Himachal Pradesh Livestock Development Board, but subsequently, vide Notification dated 19.09.2017, ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ came to be amended, whereby Veterinary Assistants came be recruited and paid honorarium directly by the Animal Husbandry Department instead of the Rural Development Department. 9. In the year 2017, State Government itself decided to convert the services of 530 GPVAs, working on monthly honorarium basis of Rs. 7000/-, subject to their having completed five years under the scheme of ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ on contact basis, by extending the 8 benefits of contract policy from the date of issuance of order (Annexure R-1). 10. Pursuant to the afore decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, petitioners herein, who were initially appointed in the year 2012 and were being paid honorarium by the concerned Gram Panchayat, also came to be brought on contract basis. State Government, vide Notification dated 06.07.2018(Annexure R-2),itself decided to that all GPVAs, who had completed five years of service working under ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ may be brought on contract. Though pursuant to aforesaid Notification, services of the petitioners stood converted on contact basis vide Office dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure P-4), but interestingly, they are being denied benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. . 11. Now, interestingly, while referring to Notification dated 04.08.2018 (Annexure R-3), an attempt has been made by the respondent-Department to refute the claim of the petitioners for regularization on the ground that vide Notification dated 04.08.2018, the decision taken pursuant to Notification dated 9 06.07.2018(Annexure R-2) was purportedly withdrawn. However, having carefully perused Notification dated 04.08.2018, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that Notification dated 04.08.2018 is in continuation of notification dated 06.07.2018. Pursuant to Notification dated 04.08.2018, it was decided that all the GPVAs, who had completed five years of service working under ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’ may be paid contractual emoluments according with the instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Regulation) Department vide notification dated 27.09.2012, but this notification nowhere withdrew the decision of the Government taken vide Notification dated 06.07.2018, whereby it was decided that all GPVAs who had completed five years of service working under ‘Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna’, may be brought on contract. 12. At this juncture, it is expedient to take note of both the Notifications dated 06.07.2018 and 04.08.2028, as set out herein below:- Notification dated 06.07.2018 The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order that all GPVAs, who have completed five years of service 10 working under Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna may be brought on contract with immediate effect, in public interest. However, no additional Class-IV staff will be provided to them. Notification dated 04.08.2018 In continuation of this Department’s notification No. AHY-B(6)-8/2013, dated 6th July, 2018, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order that all GPVAs who have completed five years of service working under Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna may be paid contractual emoluments according to the instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Regulation) Department vide Notification No. Fin (PR) -B(7)-64/2010, dated 27th September, 2012.” 13. A careful perusal of Notification dated 04.08.2018 reveals that it was not issued in supersession of Notification dated 06.07.2018, rather it is in continuation of Notification dated 06.07.2018. Vide Notification dated 04.08.2018, it was decoded that all GPVAs, who had completed five years of service under Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna shall be paid contractual emoluments in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Regulation) Department vide Notification dated 27th September, 2012. However, afore Notification nowhere suggests that decision to convert the services of the petitioners from GPVAs to contract was withdrawn. Moreover, this Court finds that initial decision to bring such of GPVAs, who had completed five years service on contract was taken vide office orders dated 11 22.12.2017 and 01.08.2018 (Annexures P-3 & P-4). If it is so, Notification dated 04.08.2018, sought to be pressed into service by the respondents, may not be of any relevance. Moreover, this Court having perused Notification dated 04.08.2018 observes that the same has nowhere superseded the earlier Notification dated 06.07.2018, issued by Principal Secretary (AH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby it was decided that all GPVAs, who had completed five years of service working under Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna may be brought on contract. 14. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Notification dated 04.08.2018, purportedly withdrew the decision taken vide the earlier Notification dated 06.07.2019, petitioners herein cannot be made to suffer for the reason that they were brought on contract prior to the issuance of Notification dated 04.08.2018 vide order dated 01.08.2018(Annexure P-4). 15. Though, at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that now on account of promulgation of R& P Rules for the post of Veterinary Pharmacists, Class-III (Non Gazetted) in the Department of Animal Husbandry, the claim of the petitioners for regularization 12 ought not to be entertained, this Court of the view that rightful claim of the petitioners for regularization cannot be curtailed on the ground that R&P Rules for the post of Veterinary Pharmacists, Class-III have now been framed. The R& P Rules for the post of Veterinary Pharmacists, Class-III were notified on 21.12.2018, whereas the petitioners herein stood appointed against the post of GPVAs pursuant to policy decision of Government of Himachal Pradesh under the Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna scheme in the year 2012, when admittedly neither R&P Rules for the post in question were in existence, nor there were any sanctioned posts. The Government, in order to strengthen the infrastructure in the veterinary dispensaries, itself decided to engage veterinary pharmacists. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioners herein are fully qualified to be appointed against the post on account of their having completed the two years’ diploma. 16. Since it is not in dispute that the Government of Himachal Pradesh,vide policy decision dated 2017 (Annexure P- 5) decided to regularize the services of contractual appointees, who had worked for three years. and pursuant to such policy, a number of persons in various departments of State of Himachal 13 Pradesh have already been regularized, there appears to be no justification to deny similar benefits to the petitioners, especially when some of the similarly situate persons i.e. GPVAs, who were initially appointed under Mukhya Mantri Arogya Pashudhan Yojna, like petitioners, have already been granted such benefits. 17. Though the R&P Rules for the post of Veterinary Pharmacist were notified in the year 2018, but feeder category for the same is Veterinary Assistant having the requisite number of years of service. Since petitioners herein are Veterinary Assistants and they have served for several years, they are eligible for promotion to the post of Veterinary Pharmacist in terms of R & P Rules. However, their precise grievance is that they are required to be regularized against the post of GPVAs on account of their having completed more than 8 years of service on contract basis. Since in the year 2017, petitioners were brought on contract and this Court has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been now appointed against the post of Veterinary Pharmacist (Trainee), but yet their services are not being regularized in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 14 18. Once it is not in dispute that petitioners have been continuously working on contract basis for more than 8 years, coupled with the fact that policy of Government of Himachal Pradesh vide policy decision dated 10.02.2017, has itself decided to regularise the services of persons, who have rendered more than five years of service, there appears to be no justification to deny similar treatment to the petitioners, who have, in any event, been working against the post in question for more than 13 years. 19. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as per the existing policy of 2017, as and when they have completed requisite 3 years of service alongwith monetary benefits and other consequential benefits including seniority. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 22, 2025 (shankar)