IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5215 of 2020 Date of Decision: 21.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Narinder ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) A writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing Annexure P-9 qua the petitioner. (ii) That a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 5 to consider the petitioner for allowing him to continue as IT network technician at in ECHS Polyclinic, Yol Cantt. till he attains the age of superannuation or he is replaced by a regular incumbent. (d) Those respondents may be directed not to replace the petitioner with another contract employee.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition is that though he had been working on - 2 - contract basis since 30.3.2020, yet for no cogent and convincing reasons, his services are being disengaged/replaced by another contractual employee. Since after the alleged discharge of the petitioner, respondent-Union of India by way of fresh advertisement again invited application for appointment on contract basis, petitioner, who had been working without there being any complaint for more than two years, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs as reproduced herein above. 3. Since number of persons similarly situate to the petitioner were disengaged and their services were sought to be replaced by another set of contractual employees, they have approached this Court by way of different writ petitions. In some of the writ petitions, this Court stayed the fresh advertisement and directed the respondent- Union of India to maintain status quo qua appointment of the petitioner on contract basis. 4. Before afore cases could be heard and decided on their own merits, matter landed before the Full Bench on account of conflicting orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this court. Since Full Bench held in favour of the respondent-Union of India, some of the private parties, who are petitioners before this court, approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No. 36359 of 2016, wherein direction came to be issued to maintain status quo qua appointment of the private parties. Taking note of the aforesaid order - 3 - passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, number of writ petitions came to be disposed of with the direction that till the time SLP filed by private parties is decided, petitioners herein shall continue to render their services in their respective places, but their continuation shall abide by the outcome of the SLP. 5. Since petitioner herein is similarly situate to the petitioners in CWP No. 5383 of 2024, titled Dr. Prajesh Patial v. Union of India and Ors., and order, as detailed herein above, stands passed in their cases, learned counsel for the petitioner states that similar orders are required to be passed in the instant case, which fact has been fairly admitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, who is otherwise representing the respondent-Union of India in all the writ petitions, involving similar issues including the present petition. 6. At this stage, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, under instructions, states that in deference to the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Pharmacist, but subsequently, he has left the job. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner joins against the post in question at afore station within fifteen days of passing of the instant order, he be allowed to perform - 4 - his duties, falling which respondent would be at liberty to engage/appoint a new incumbent in his place. However, it is made clear that his continuation, if any, would be subject to the outcome of the afore SLP. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge