( 2025:HHC:9124-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1140/2022 Decided on: 04.04.2025 Bindu Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner feels aggrieved against disengagement/breaks as given in her service by the respondents w.e.f 22.09.1993 to 07.01.2004. According to her, the said breaks were in violation of principle of ‘last come first go’. The petitioner also seeks applicability of decision rendered in State of H.P. & Ors Vs. Narain Singh2. Petitioner also prays for quashing of order dated 06.08.2021 whereby respondents rejected her case as not covered under the aforesaid decision. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2LPA No.146/2010 a/w connected matters decided on 01.09.2015 2 ( 2025:HHC:9124-DB ) 2. 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-16) 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 in service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 22.09.1993 to 07.01.2004 as illegal being in violation of the principle of last come first go for all intents and purposes. (iii) Accordingly 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 break period w.e.f. 22.06.1993 to 06.01.2004 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 to grant benefit of her contractual services and consequentially regularize the service of the Petitioner after completion of 8 years of contractual service( w.e.f. 16.11.2000) in terms of the policy framed by the department with all consequential benefits by modifying the order of regularization dated 18.12.2014 for all intents and purposes.” 3 ( 2025:HHC:9124-DB ) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue raised in this writ petition has been decided in Babita Rani Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh3. 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.” 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 3CWP No. 3151/2019 decided on 05.03.2020 4 ( 2025:HHC:9124-DB ) 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.” 4. The above position had not been disputed for the respondents. Impugned order is non-speaking and also not in conformity with above decision. In Babita Rani’s3 case, respondents were directed to implement the decision in Narain Singh’s2 case to all retrenched contractual teachers, if found to be similarly situated. Impugned order is also at variance to the office order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-14) whereunder services of several retrenched para-teachers (subsequently re-engaged) were regularized. In view of above, the 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’s case2 and 5 ( 2025:HHC:9124-DB ) 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. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 4th April, 2025(rohit)