2025:HHC:34662 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.1650 of 2019 Decided on: 13.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Smt. Saroj Bala and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No For the petitioners: Mr. Hoshiyar Singh Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioners, namely Saroj Bala and Meena Kumari, have come up before this Court, seeking following relief(s):- “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order dated 19.07.2010 issued by respondent No.1 for which the petitioners humbly prays. ii) That a writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner after completion of five years regular service as nursery Teachers and the benefits flowing out of this such as arrears, increments, and counting of the service etc. along with all consequential benefits may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners with a further direction 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:34662 - 2 - to the respondents to count the service rendered by each of the petitioner as nursery teachers for the purpose of increments and other benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Nursery Teachers in the Respondent- Department on 06.12.1997. It is further averred that the State Government formulated a policy whereby, the Nursery Teachers were to be given a Special JBT Certificate upon completion of 10 years of service. However, the State Authorities took a decision on 02.02.1999 [Annexure P-1] that the Nursery Trained Teachers may be treated at par with voluntary teachers and their services may also be regularized after completion of five years service, instead of 10 years service. This communication also provided for regularization, after the grant of Special JBT Certificate after 5 years of service as Nursery Trained Teachers. It is further averred that though the petitioners were entitled to be considered for grant of Special JBT Certificate and resultant regularization after completion of 5 years of service but, the respondents regularized/appointed petitioners on 23.05.2006 2025:HHC:34662 - 3 - [Annexure P-3] as JBT in regular pay scale of Rs.4550- 7220 plus allowances on 23.05.2006, [Annexure P-3]. It is further averred that the petitioners had submitted a representation to the State Authorities and their case along with others was rejected on 19.07.2010 [Annexure P-5]. The petitioners have assailed the rejection orders and have claimed the benefit of Special JBT Certificate and resultant regularization/regular appointment as JBT from the date they have completed 5 years of service as Nursery Trained Teachers, on the analogy on which the benefit has been granted to others after 5 years of service. STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES IN THE REPLY-AFFIDAVIT IN INSTANT CASE: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit of Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh on 28.10.2014. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the State Authorities notified the “Himachal Pradesh Nursery Trained Teacher Scheme 1997”. It is further averred that the petitioners have done their Nursery Teachers Training of one year. It is further averred that the State Authorities took a conscious decision to grant 2025:HHC:34662 - 4 - Special JBT Certificate after completion of 10 years of service as Nursery Trained Teachers. It is further averred that the requirement of 10 years of service was reduced to 5 years, upon which the Special JBT Certificate and resultant regularization/regular appointment was to be granted to Nursery Trained Teachers, which includes the petitioners. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that LPA No.45 of 2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Karuna Devi, decided on 22.12.2015 is pending against grant of similar benefits. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the claim of the petitioners for benefit of Special JBT Certificates and resultant regularization after 5 years, based on the judgment in the case of Duni Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in the case of Paras Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, as mentioned in Para 2 of the Reply-Affidavit, is not tenable. Reply-Affidavit further states that the judgment in the case of Duni Chand [supra] stands reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal 2025:HHC:34662 - 5 - contends that the stand of the State Authorities in LPA No.45 of 2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Karuna Devi, will not be of any assistance to the State Authorities for the reason, that the aforesaid LPA stands dismissed and the judgment entitling similarly placed incumbents for regularization from an earlier date has been upheld. 4(i). During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed on record, a copy of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3544 of 2019, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Surendra Sharma and others, decided on 06.11.2020 whereby, the benefit of Special JBT Certificate and resultant regularization/ regular appointment has been directed to be given to other similar by placed Nursery Trained Teachers on completion of 5 years, instead of the earlier requirement of 10 years service by the State Authorities. It is stated that the judgment in case of Surendra Sharma [supra] has attained finality and the aforesaid judgment stands implemented by Director of Elementary Education, in terms of the communication dated 2025:HHC:34662 - 6 - 04.02.2021 [Taken on Record], whereby, the benefit of Special JBT Certificate and resultant regularization/ regular appointment as JBT from the date of completion of 5 years as Nursery Trained Teachers has been extended to the Surendra Sharma [supra] and also to many other similar incumbents. 5. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits, on Instructions, that the petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, the State Authorities are directed to consider/examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgment in the case of Surendra Sharma [supra], being similarly placed. [Statement Taken on Record]. 6. Heard, Mr. Hoshiyar Singh Rangra, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the Respondents-State. 7. Without going into the rival claims and contentions and in view of the additional facts now placed before this Court, by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Surendra Sharma, [supra], this Court disposes of the present writ petition, as prayed for 2025:HHC:34662 - 7 - by Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in the following terms: “(i) State Authorities are directed to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment in CWP No.3544 of 2020, titled State of H.P. & anr. versus Surendra Sharma and Ors, decided on 06.11.2020, within a period of six weeks from today; (ii). Upon consideration, in case the petitioners herein are found to be similarly placed then, the admissible benefits, as have been extended to Surendra Sharma [supra] shall also be extended to the petitioners herein. (iii) Since the petitioners have filed the instant petition on 31.07.2013, therefore, the admissible consequential benefits shall be restricted for a period of three weeks, from the date of filing of the petitioner and thereafter in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797, followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal 2025:HHC:34662 - 8 - Corporation, CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online S C 641] decided on 18.5.2022; (iv). Needless to say that this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions, claims and its admissibility or inadmissibility, which are left to be examined by the State Authorities in the aforesaid terms. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is dispose of along with all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 13th October, 2025 [himani]