IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7505 of 2021 Date of Decision: 13.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ms. Rajni Joshi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Devender Sharma and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP No. 18624 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CWP No. 7505 of 2021 2. Petitioner feels aggrieved against disengagement/breaks as given in her service by the respondents w.e.f 28.02.1997 to 01.01.2004. According to her, the said breaks were in violation of principle of ‘last come first go’. The petitioner also seeks applicability of judgment dated 1.9.2015 rendered in LPA No. 146 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. & Ors Vs. Narain Singh (alongwith connected - 2 - matters). Petitioner also prays for quashing of order dated 06.08.2021 whereby respondents rejected her case as not covered under the aforesaid decision. 3. Following substantive reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioner:- “i) Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit quashing the order dated 06.08.2021 ( Annexure P-14) for all intents and purposes. ii) Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit declaring the disengagement/breaks /termination of the Petitioner service w.e.f. 28.02.1997 to 01.01.2004 as illegal being in violation of the principle of last come first go. iii) Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the respondent department to treat the entire period w.e.f. 28.02.1997 to 01.01.2004 as continuity in service for regularization, service benefits etc, for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP (T) No. 5253/2008 title Narain Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors and affirmed in LPA no.146 of 2010 (State of H.P. Vs Narain Singh along with other connected cases). iv) Accordingly Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the respondents department grant benefits of her contractual services and regularize the service of the Petitioner after completion of 8 years of contractual service (w.e.f. 28.01.2005 ) in terms of the policy framed by the department - 3 - with all consequential benefits by modifying the order of regularization dated 19.12.2014 for all intents and purposes. v) Issue writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the respondents department to regularize the service of the Petitioner as done in the cases of similarly situated cases who were regularized from the day their juniors were regularized in terms of Order dated 30.06.2021 ( Annexure P-13) for all intents and purposes.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue raised in this writ petition has been decided on 5.3.2020 in CWP No. 3151 of 2019 titled as Babita Rani Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. The said decision is as under:- “Even though, the respondents have filed short reply, however, copy of the same is not on record. Registry is directed to trace and place the same on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of the following reliefs: “i) That termination of the petitioner service w.e.f. 12.10.1998 to 29.06.2001 be declared illegal being in violation of the principle of last come first go. ii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to treat the entire period w.e.f. 12.10.1998 to 29.06.2001 as continuity in service for regularization, service benefits etc., for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP(T) No. 5253/2008 titled Narain Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and affirmed in LPA No. 146 of 2010 (State of H.P. vs. Narain Singh along with other connected cases). iii) That accordingly the respondents department may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 8 years of contractual service ( w.e.f. 12.06.2006) in terms of the policy framed by the department with all consequential benefits.” - 4 - 3. The short reply filed by the respondents, copy whereof made available to us in the open Court, reveals that the respondents themselves have undertaken to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No.5253 of 2008, titled Narain Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which has been affirmed right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and extend the benefits to all retrenched contractual teachers including non-petitioners, as is evident from para-3 of the short reply which reads as under: “3. That after dismissal of SLP in Narain Singh’s case the entire matter for further directions regarding implementation of the judgment passed in Narain Singh’s case to all retrenched contractual teachers including non petitioners in Narain Singh’s Case are being examined at the Govt. level and after decision, action in the present matter will be taken.” 4. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to implement the judgment passed in Narain Singh’s case (supra) and extend the benefits to all the retrenched contractual teachers including the petitioner and also the nonpetitioners, if found to be similarly situated. Needful be done within six weeks from today. 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 5. The above position has not been disputed by the respondents. Impugned order is non-speaking and also not in conformity with above decision. In Babita Rani (supra), respondents were directed to implement the decision in Narain Singh (supra) qua all retrenched contractual teachers, if found to be similarly situated. Impugned order is also at variance with the office order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-13) whereunder services of several retrenched para-teachers (subsequently re-engaged) were regularized. - 5 - 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of the judgment passed in Narain Singh (supra) and extend the benefits to the petitioner, if found to be similarly situated. Needful be done within six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge