2025:HHC:20715 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.7955 of 2019 Reserved on: 25.06.2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 Sarojni Devi ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for following reliefs: “i) That the impugned order dated 8.5.2015 may be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant from the date when she completes eight year of service i.e. on 31.3.2004 or on 31.3.2006. ii) That the order dated 16.8.2010 may be notified to the extent that the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant with effect from 31.3.2004 or 31.3.2006 with all consequential benefits.” 2 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Warden in Bal- Balika Ashram (for short, “Ashram”) on 26.06.1995. The said institution was being run by a voluntary organization. 3. On 11.03.1998, the Ashram was ordered to be transferred with immediate effect to Government of Himachal Pradesh (Welfare Department) along with its assets and liabilities and employees in their present status. The terms and conditions of the employees of Ashram were to be regulated as per Rules/Instructions issued by the Government from time to time. 4. The services of the petitioner also came to be transferred along with Ashram. On 01.12.2004, 8 posts were ordered to be created for management of the Ashram on the analogy of Ashram at Kilar in District Chamba. The salary for Warden was fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month. 5. The services of the petitioner stood regularized as Craft teacher w.e.f. 16.08.2010 in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + Rs2400 Grade Pay. The petitioner thereafter filed CWP No.5622 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.03.2015 with direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of averments contained in the writ petition read with Rules occupying the field and take a decision about the date of her regularization within six weeks. Evidently, the petitioner by way of CWP No.5622 of 2013 had sought the 3 relief to reckon her services from 27.06.1995 for regularization instead of 16.08.2010. 6. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the competent authority vide impugned Annexure A-7 dated 07.05.2015. Hence, this petition, whereby, the petitioner is seeking regularization of her services from retrospective effect by basing her claim on the regularization policy of the State Government. 7. The respondents have filed the reply and have contested the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the State Government had taken over the services of the petitioner along with other employees of Ashram in the year 1998. The salary of the petitioner was increased to Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 28.09.2006. During 2010, the Government decided to close two institutions i.e. State Homes at Chamba and Mandi and the Staff employed in such institutions was adjusted in other institutions. The posts were thus transferred from the aforesaid closed institutions to the Ashram and on availability of the post of Craft Teacher, the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 16.08.2010. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully. 4 9. From the pleadings of the parties and also the documents placed on record, it can be taken as an admitted position that the Ashram was taken over by State Government vide notification dated 11.03.1998 along with assets, liabilities and employees. It was specifically mentioned in the notification dated 11.03.1998 that the terms and conditions of employees would be regulated as per Rules/Instructions issued by the Government from time to time. 10. It appears that no specific Rules were framed for the employees of the Ashram. The petitioner has also not placed on record any material to suggest as to which specific rule governed her services. 11. The petitioner has placed on record a document Annexure A-3, which is a communication dated 01.12.2004, whereby 8 posts were created for the Ashram on the fixed salary and the salary of Warden was fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month. The respondents have stated in the reply that the salary was being paid to the petitioner under “Mukhya Mantri Bal Uddhar Yojna” and it was increased to Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 28.09.2006. 12. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner had raised objection either to the fixation of her salary at Rs.4,000/- per month in the year 2004 or its enhancement to Rs.5,000/- per month in the year 2006. 5 13 A writ petition is stated to have been filed by the employees of Ashram being CWP(T) No.986 of 2008, in which statedly the claim for regularization was raised. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2010 with direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization, strictly as per norms prescribed, with all consequential benefits in the eventuality of their regularization. The aforesaid order appears to have been followed by the regularization order of the petitioner dated 16.08.2010. After receipt of the regularization order, the petitioner again approached this Court after almost three years for seeking regularization from retrospective effect. Though, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, but the same was rejected for the reasons that finally have been made basis of defence in reply filed to the instant petition. The relevant material from reply of respondent has already been noticed above. 14. Concededly, the services of the petitioner could be regularized against the sanctioned post only. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that despite availability of vacant sanctioned post, the regularization was not ordered in her favour. On the other hand, the respondents have sufficiently explained that on closure of two similar institutions in Chamba and Mandi, the posts 6 were transferred to the Ashram and in such circumstances, the post of Craft Teacher had become available against which the petitioner was appointed. Even as per regularization policy of the State Government, availability of vacancy against sanctioned post was the sine qua non. It is also not the case of petitioner that any other employee of the Ashram, in the similar conditions, was treated differently. That being so, petitioner has not been able to make out a case for regularisation of her services from any date prior to availability of sanctioned post. 15. In result, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with all pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge July 01, 2025 (vt)