2025:HHC:23120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1818 of 2020 Decided on: 17.07.2025 Ram Murti ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pratush Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondents to regularize his services on completion of 8 years of service as Para Teacher as has been done in the case of teachers appointed on contract basis or as Vidya Upasaks. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher on 10.02.2004. He continued to perform the duties of Para Teacher (Drawing Master). His services have been regularized vide office order dated 19.12.2014 i.e. after more than 10 years of continuous service. 3. The grievance that has been raised by the petitioner is that the respondents have discriminated against the petitioner 2 vis a vis the other similarly situated teachers appointed on contract basis or as Vidya Upasaks. The petitioner contends that the other two categories, as noticed above, have been given the benefit of regularization on completion of 8 years of continuous service. 4. The petitioner has based his claim on the premise that there is no quantitative or qualitative difference or distinction between the duties performed by the petitioner and by those who have been appointed on contract basis or under Vidya Upasaks scheme. 5. The respondents have filed a reply and they have not been able to contradict that the nature of job performed by Para Teaches was not different than the contract teachers or Vidya Upasaks. It has been submitted that since the Para Teachers and contract teachers were appointed under different Policies, the claim of the petitioner was not justified. 6. The issue as to parity between the Para Teachers, contract teachers and Vidya Upasaks along with various other similar categories was considered by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.08.2023, passed in CWPOA No.5507 of 2020, titled Oma Wati and another vs. State of 3 Himachal Pradesh and others. Hon’ble Division Bench after making specific observations has held as under: “8. Despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases that State must behave like a Model Employer, State, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard, successively keeps on to formulate, adopt and practise exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate rights of the employees for which they are otherwise entitled. On intervention of the Courts directing the State to extend such benefits like pay scale, increment, leave and counting of service etc., State every time tries to deprive the employee from such benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue with practice of temporary/ad-hoc appointments. Appointment of Voluntary Teachers, ad-hoc Teachers, Vidya Upasaks, Contract Teachers, PARA Teachers, PAT, PTA and SMC Teachers are examples of clever phraseology devised by State to overcome directions of the Courts in order to avoid permanent appointments by appointing ad-hoc/Temporary Teachers depriving them of service benefits available to regular employees. When Courts upheld the entitlement of ad-hoc employees for service benefits, State came with Scheme for appointment of Voluntary Teachers. Again, on intervention of the Court, State continued changing the name of Policy but for appointment on exploitative terms. Therefore, we are of the opinion that all these terms are 4 similar temporary appointments irrespective of their nomenclature. Therefore, verdict of the Court regarding extension of service benefits with respect to one kind of temporary appointment is equally applicable to similar temporary appointment with different nomenclature.” 7. The judgment in Oma Wati (supra) has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by the State bearing No.46343 of 2024 stands dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.05.2025. 8. Thus, no distinction can be drawn between Para Teachers and Contract Teachers insofar as the applicability of service conditions are concerned. All have to be treated equally, more particularly in light of what has been held in Oma Wati (supra). 9. In result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his services immediately on completion of 8 years of service as Para Teacher. The consequential benefits will also follow. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 17th July, 2025 (vt)