Vinod Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others a/w connected matters CMP(M) No. 1903 of 2024, CMP No.22380 of 2024 and LPA No.2 of 2025 CMP(M) No. 1903 of 2024 02.04.2025 Present: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Sparsh, Advocate, for the applicants. Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Kush Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 14. CMP No.22380 of 2024 Mr.Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate, for the applicants. Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, alongwith Ms.Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 41. LPA No.2 of 2025 Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellants. Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, alongwith Ms.Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the respondents. CMP(M) No. 9 of 2025 in LPA No.2 of 2025 This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As a matter of fact, judgment was pronounced on 20.09.2024. Copy whereof was applied on 04.10.2024, which was attested on 06.11.2024. Appeal has been preferred on 20.11.2024, therefore, it has been filed within 30 days after deducting time taken to obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment. Therefore, this application is misconceived and is disposed of accordingly. LPA No.2 of 2025 List for consideration on 26.05.2025 alongwith connected matters. CMP No.163 of 2025 in LPA No.2 of 2025 Reply to the application, as prayed, be filed within four weeks. List for consideration alongwith main appeal on next date of hearing. CMP No.24129 of 2024 in LPA/45435/2024 This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal to assail judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.7913 of 2022, whereby following relief has been granted to the private respondents:- “22. In the light of above discussion, petitions are allowed. The decision of respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners prospectively w.e.f. 20.08.2020 is quashed being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of their respective services of 8/10 years, as adopted in the cases of GVU and Para Teachers. Since, the respondents have already granted such bnenefit ot the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date i.e. 18.12.2014. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” Ground of the applicants is that they were regularly appointed through prescribed Agency, i.e. H.P. Service Selection Board by adopting due process as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short R & P Rules). However, private respondents, who were appointed under various policies, including Gram Vidya Upasaks (GVU)/Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT), have been granted all consequential benefits including seniority from a date prior to the date of appointment of present applicants and, thus, in case seniority is granted to the private respondents from such date, it will have adverse impact on the service career of the applicants. But, such benefit has been directed to be extended to the private respondents without arraying the applicants or their representatives as party in the main petition. Prima facie, there is force in the plea of the applicants, therefore, they are permitted to file appeal against the impugned judgment only to the limited extent with respect to the extension of benefit of seniority to the private respondents but prior to the date of regular appointment of the applicants. Private respondents have filed replies to the application repelling the plea of the applicants questioning their entitlement/locus to assail the judgment. Learned counsel for the private respondents submit that all consequential benefits have been granted to the private respondents on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court and as per policy adopted by the State, extended to other similarly persons of different categories of GVU/PAT, who were similarly situated being appointed under different Scheme adopted by the State. Grounds taken in the replies and argued during hearing are to be considered on merit in the hearing of main appeal. Rival contentions of the parties, including the applicants have to be considered in the main appeal and allowing this application does not mean that plea of the applicants has been accepted on merit but application is being allowed considering prima facie case but not ex facie, and appeal shall be decided on its own merit. Thus, applicants shall not have any right to agitate any other issue in the appeal except the issue which has direct impact on their service career, i.e. grant of seniority to private respondents above the applicants. With aforesaid observations, leave to appeal is granted to the applicants to assail the judgment supra. Appeal is allowed and disposed of. CMP(M) No.1903 of 2024 For the reasons stated in the application and considering submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be registered. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. of 2025 (LPA45435/2024) List for consideration alongwith LPA No.2 of 2025 on the date already fixed. CMP No. of 2025(CMPST/45458/24) Reply to the application be filed within four weeks. List for consideration alongwith main appeal and connected matters on the date already fixed. CMP No.22380 of 2024 (in LPA/43008/2024) This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal to assail judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.3280 of 2022, whereby following relief has been granted to the private respondents:- “22. In the light of above discussion, petitions are allowed. The decision of respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners prospectively w.e.f. 20.08.2020 is quashed being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of their respective services of 8/10 years, as adopted in the cases of GVU and Para Teachers. Since, the respondents have already granted such bnenefit ot the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date i.e. 18.12.2014. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” Ground of the applicants is that they were regularly appointed through prescribed Agency, i.e. H.P. Service Selection Board by adopting due process as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short R & P Rules). However, private respondents, who were appointed under various policies, including Gram Vidya Upasaks (GVU)/Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT), have been granted all consequential benefits including seniority from a date prior to the date of appointment of present applicants and, thus, in case seniority is granted to the private respondents from such date, it will have adverse impact on the service career of the applicants. But, such benefit has been directed to be extended to the private respondents without arraying the applicants or their representatives as party in the main petition. Prima facie, there is force in the plea of the applicants, therefore, they are permitted to file appeal against the impugned judgment only to the limited extent with respect to the extension of benefit of seniority to the private respondents but prior to the date of regular appointment of the applicants. Private respondents have filed replies to the application repelling the plea of the applicants questioning their entitlement/locus to assail the judgment. Learned counsel for the private respondents submit that all consequential benefits have been granted to the private respondents on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court and as per policy adopted by the State, extended to other similarly persons of different categories of GVU/PAT, who were similarly situated being appointed under different Scheme adopted by the State. Grounds taken in the replies and argued during hearing are to be considered on merit in the hearing of main appeal. Rival contentions of the parties, including the applicants have to be considered in the main appeal and allowing this application does not mean that plea of the applicants has been accepted on merit but application is being allowed considering prima facie case but not ex facie, and appeal shall be decided on its own merit. Thus, applicants shall not have any right to agitate any other issue in the appeal except the issue which has direct impact on their service career, i.e. grant of seniority to private respondents above the applicants. With aforesaid observations, leave to appeal is granted to the applicants to assail the judgment supra. Appeal is allowed and disposed of. LPA No. of 2025(LPA/43008/2024) Be registered. Parties are duly represented. List for hearing/consideration alongwith LPA No.2 of 2025 on the date already fixed. CMP No. of 2025(CMPST/43057/2024) Reply to the application be filed within four weeks. List for consideration alongwith main appeal on 26.05.2025. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 2, 2025 (Purohit)