IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7592 of 2021 Date of Decision: 25.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rekha Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant actual financial benefits to the petitioner with effect from 22.12.2014 from which date the services of the petitioner have been regularized alongwith arrears and interest @ 9%per annum. ii. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and the office order dated 22nd August, 2020 (Annexure P-12) may very kindly be ordered to be modified to the extent, whereby the regularization with effect from 22.12.2014 has been made on notional basis and by further directing the respondents to grant actual benefit to the petitioner with effect from 22.12.2014 and further direct respondents to pay the arrears to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9%per annum.” 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide appointment letter dated 3.6.2004 (Annexure P-1), petitioner herein came to be appointed as Para Teacher i.e. Drawing Master pursuant 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to Para Teacher Policy 2003, at Government Senior Secondary School Kupvi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Vide communication dated 26.6.2004 (Annexure P-2), respondents decided not to continue those para teachers, who had acquired Art and Craft Diplomas from Deemed Universities. Pursuant to afore decision, respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons (Annexure P-2) and ultimately, on 9.5.2005, petitioner was disengaged. 3. Being aggrieved on account of her disengagement, petitioner approached the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1244 of 2006, titled Rekha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., wherein interim order dated 29.9.2006 came to be passed, thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as para teacher (Art and Craft/Drawing Teacher at GMS Charoli under GSSS Kupvi, Tehsil Chopal, if the post is still vacant. Pursuant to afore order passed by the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal, petitioner was re-engaged and thereafter she is continuing till date, but now as a regular teacher. 4. Afore Original Application filed by the petitioner on account of Abolishment of the Tribunal, came to be transferred to this Court and was re-registered as CWP(T) No. 13394 of 2008 (Annexure P-4). Vide order dated 6.1.2011, Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the afore petition on the basis of decision taken on 21.6.2007 taken by the respondents, whereby Government itself decided to give recognition to all such diploma awarded by deemed universities during the period starting from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005 for the purpose of employment under the State Government. 3 5. Having taken note of the afore decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, this Court having noticed fact that petitioner had obtained diploma from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, the university which is recognized by the respondent, allowed the petition quashed and set-aside the Show Cause Notice dated 5.7.2004, and order dated 9.5.2005. Pursuant to afore decision taken by the respondents dated 21.6.2007, number of persons including the petitioner, came to be reengaged and respondents, in majority of cases, considered the period for which the petitioner and similarly situate persons remained out of service after issuance of Show Cause Notice for the purpose of seniority, as is evident from copy of order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed in the case of one person namely Netar Singh, who had also approached this court by way of CWP No. 11377 of 2008, titled as Netar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. 6. Pursuant to order dated 22.4.2010 passed in aforesaid writ petition, above named Netar Singh was allowed to join as Para Teacher (Drawing Master) by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Nanidhar, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh against vacancy on 21.5.2010, but he was not assigned seniority from the year 2004 when he was selected as Para Teacher but denied appointment, however, pursuant to order dated 22.4.2010 passed by this Court, he was also assigned seniority qua the period he was not permitted to join on account of his having obtained diploma from deemed university. 7. Careful perusal of averments contained in para 5 of the petition clearly reveals that number of similarly situate persons were 4 granted benefit of seniority qua the period they remained out of service on account of issuance of Show Cause Notice, but ultimately, pursuant to decision dated 21.6.2007, taken by the respondents, they all were assigned benefit of seniority qua the period they remained out of service on account of Show Cause Notice issued in their respective cases for their having obtained diplomas in the subject of Art and Craft from deemed Universities. 8. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein, in whose favour, interim order dated 29.9.2006 was passed by the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1244 of 2006 and on the strength of which he remained in service, has been wrongfully denied benefit of seniority qua the period he was compelled to remain out of service on account of issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 26.6.2004. 9. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the reply filed by the respondents, stated that since petitioner never worked for the period she is claiming seniority, no illegality can be said to be committed by the respondents while not granting relief as is sought in the instant petition as well as representation dated 26.12.2020 (Annexure P-13). 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though initially on 3.6.2004, petitioner was selected against the post of Para Teacher by duly constituted Selection Committee on the strength of diploma in the subject of 5 Art and Craft obtained by the petitioner from the deemed University, but as of today, he stands regularized w.e.f. 22.12.2014 on notional basis. 11. Precise grouse of the petitioner is that period qua which she was unable to render service as a Para Teacher is also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority, especially when all similarly situate persons have been given similar benefits. This Court finds that though petitioner was disengaged on 30.6.2004 in terms of general notice dated 26.6.2004 (Annexure P-2), but vide order dated 29.9.2006, respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to work as para teacher, as a result thereof, petitioner remained out of job for almost two years. Order dated 29.9.2006, virtually became absolute on account of passing of order dated 6.1.2011 by this Court in CWP(T) No. 13394 of 2008 (Annexure P-4), which was disposed of on the basis of decision dated 21.6.2007 taken by the respondents, whereby they themselves decided to give recognition to all such diplomas awarded by the deemed university during the period starting from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005. Since certificate of diploma adduced on record by the petitioner at the time of selection was dated 17.9.2003, he was also given similar benefits. Though pursuant to afore decision taken on 21.6.2007, petitioner herein alongwith other similarly situate persons, who were admittedly appointed prior to issuance of notice dated 26.6.2004, ought to have been considered in continuous employment, but respondents denied them benefit of the period they remained out on account of issuance of notice dated 26.6.2004. 12. In similar facts and circumstances, one person namely Netar Singh, approached this court in CWP No. 11377 of 2008, which came to be 6 disposed of vide judgment dated 22.4.2010 with a direction to the respondents to consider the period in which afore petitioner remained out of service on account of issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 26.6.2004 and in compliance to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, respondents vide order dated 22.11.2011, granted benefit of seniority to Netar Singh for the period he was out of service on account of issuance of Show Cause Notice. It was not only Netar Singh, but number of persons as detailed in para 5 of the petition, who have been granted similar benefits, but for unknown reasons, similar treatment has been denied to the petitioner, as a result thereof, she has approached this Court for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 13. This Court finds that petitioner herein was on better footing than Netar Singh as well as similarly situate persons because admittedly, after her disengagement, she approached erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 1244 of 2006, wherein vide order dated 29.9.2006, respondents came to be directed to permit petitioner to work as Para Teacher. Since afore date, petitioner has been working regularly without there being any interruption. No doubt, prior to passing of afore order, petitioner was out of job for approximately two years, but since period of two years has been condoned in the cases of other similarly situate persons, such as Netar Singh as well as persons detailed in para 5 of the petition, it is not understood, how and under what circumstances, similar benefit could not be granted to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that as of today, petitioner stands regularized and through this instant petition, 7 he is only seeking benefit of seniority qua the period, he remained out of job pursuant to service of show cause notice dated 26.6.2004. 14. There is another aspect of the matter that once respondents themselves vide decision dated 21.6.2007, decided to give the recognition to all such diplomas awarded by the deemed university during the period starting from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005 coupled with the fact that petitioner herein had procured diploma on 17.9.2003, there was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to not grant benefit of seniority to the petitioner qua the period she was virtually prevented by the respondents from rendering her services on account of service of show cause notice dated 26.6.2004. 15. Careful perusal of order dated 22.8.2020 (Annexure P-12), whereby petitioner came to be regularized against the post of Drawing Master clearly reveals that period during which petitioner was out of job pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 26.6.2004, was ultimately taken into consideration by the respondents for the purpose of regularization, may be on notional basis, but once aforesaid period has been taken into consideration for the purpose of regularization, there is otherwise no reason for the respondents to deny benefit of seniority and continuity of service to the petitioner qua afore period. 16. True, it is that, on account of the fact that petitioner never worked during the aforesaid period, she has been denied actual benefits qua the afore period, but once afore period has been taken into consideration for the purpose of regularization, same is necessarily required 8 to be taken into consideration for the purpose of continuity in service as well as seniority. 17. Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed and respondents are directed to modify order dated 22.8.2020 (Annexure P-12) to the extent regularization of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.12.2014 has been made on notional basis. Petitioner herein is held entitled to actual benefits w.e.f. 22.12.2014, for the reason that after afore date, she had been regularly performing the duties against the post in question. Since petitioner has been fighting for rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within two months. 18. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 25, 2025 manjit