2025:HHC:44131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.7777 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms. Saroj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant in the respondent-department, is aggrieved of order dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-11), whereby representation, having been filed by him in terms of order dated 17.06.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.5041 of 2024, titled as Deepak Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, praying therein to grant him the benefit of regularisation from the date of his initial appointment, came to be rejected. 2. For having bird’s eye view, relevant facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that 2025:HHC:44131 -2- petitioner, who is a hearing impaired (Person with Disability), came to be called by the office of Engineer-in-Chief, IPH Department, Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) for interview to the post of Clerk on contract basis. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that the post of Clerk, qua which petitioner was called for interview, was to be filled up from the category of Persons with Disabilities. Subsequently, as per Regularisation Policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner was regularised by Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Nahan, vide office order dated 01.06.2015, after completion of requisite number of years on contract basis. 3. In the year 2015, petitioner filed OA No.3476 of 2015, titled as Deepak Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), seeking therein direction to respondents to give him appointment on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment on account of his being disabled. Afore case filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-3) with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.811 of 2011, however, fact remains that representation having been filed by the petitioner, pursuant to 2025:HHC:44131 -3- directions contained in afore order, was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P-4). Similarly situate person, namely Dila Ram, who in terms of memorandum dated 24.04.2008, was appointed against the post of Clerk against 3% quota for physically disabled persons on contract basis, approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application, which, on account of abolishment of the Tribunal, came to be transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.5077 of 2020, praying therein for following reliefs: “i) That the impugned office order dated 25.03.2017 (Annexure A6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant regular appointment to the applicant as Clerk from the date of his initial appointment/joining with all consequential benefits such as; arrears of pay/salary w.e.f. 24.04.2008 to 25.05.2015 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, pay fixation and seniority etc.” 4. In afore case, petitioner set up a case that in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’), he ought to have been given appointment against the post of Clerk under 3% quota for physically disabled person on regular basis and not on contract basis. Coordinate Bench of this Court, having taken note of judgment passed by this Court in Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWPOA No.1077 of 2019, decided on 22.08.2022, which is further based upon the judgment 2025:HHC:44131 -4- passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. National Federation of the Blinds and Others, 2013 (10) SCC 772, arrived at a conclusion that petitioner therein ought to have been offered appointment against the post in question on regular basis and accordingly issued direction to respondents to grant him appointment on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment, vide judgment dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-5). 5. Though being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dila Ram’s case, respondents filed a Letters Patent Appeal, but since same was barred by limitation, CMP(M) No.628 of 2024 was filed in LPAST/9742/2024, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Dila Ram, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.06.2024 (available at page No.48 of the paper-book). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, though respondents filed Special Leave Petition titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Dila Ram, but the same was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.12.2024, as a result thereof, judgment dated 16.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality. Since judgment passed in Dila Ram’s case (supra) was not implemented, Dila Ram filed COPC No.402 of 2023, however, during pendency of afore 2025:HHC:44131 -5- petition, respondent-department complied with the judgment dated 16.05.2023 vide addendum dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-6). 6. Petitioner herein again filed writ petition No.5041 of 2024 before this Court, praying therein to grant relief, as has been extended in Dila Ram’s case (supra), however, same was disposed of vide judgment dated 17.06.2024 (Annexure P-7), thereby directing the petitioner to file appropriate representation to the competent authority, with the further direction to competent authority to decide the same within eight weeks. Though petitioner filed representation, but since no action was taken at the behest of respondents, he filed execution petition bearing No.1218 of 2024 in CWP No.5041 of 2024. On 12.03.2025, learned Additional Advocate General submitted before Court that appropriate orders in terms of judgment shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of three weeks, as a result thereof, execution petition was closed (Annexure P-9). On 21.03.2025, petitioner submitted detailed representation to respondents No.1 & 2, which came to be rejected vide office order dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) on the ground that case of the petitioner is not similar to the cases of Dila Ram and Nitin Kumar and the Act nowhere provides appointment to the persons with disabilities category on regular basis. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached 2025:HHC:44131 -6- this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for following main reliefs: “(i) That the writ of certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned office order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) and office order dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as regular appointee of the year 2008 w.e.f. the date of his initial engagement on contact basis with the Respondents, with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears, seniority, promotion along with 9% interest etc as per the analogy of Dila Ram's case since the respondent department has already department has already granted the same benefit to Dila Ram, Devinder Kumar and Dharmeshwar Dutt on the same post and same department. iii) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to calculate and pay the arrears of salary etc. consequent to the petitioner being considered as regular appointee of 2008.” 7. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been taken note hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Section 33 of the Act, if read in its entirety, nowhere suggests that necessarily a person with disability is required to be given appointment, qua the post reserved under 3% reservation on regular basis. It has been further stated in the reply that Section 33 of the Act provides for identification of posts which can be reserved for the persons with disabilities for providing 3% reservation to the persons with disabilities in Government jobs and there is no provision of regularisation to the person with disability. Besides above, it has been further stated in the reply that Nitin Kumar’s case (supra) is totally different than Dila 2025:HHC:44131 -7- Ram’s case (supra), as Nitin Kumar was appointed as Peon on 06.11.2006 on contract basis against the provisions of the prevalent R&P Rules, wherein there was no provision for appointment on contract basis, whereas Dila Ram was appointed as Clerk on contract basis in the year 2008 strictly as per the then prevalent R&P Rules of the post of Clerk, which is implemented in peculiar circumstances and the judgment passed by the High Court, which was upheld till Hon’ble Apex Court. In nutshell, it has been stated at the behest of respondents that judgment passed in Dila Ram’s case (supra) is not a judgment in rem, but a judgment in personam and as such, does not have force of law. 8. Though having carefully perused judgment rendered in Nitin Kumar’s case (supra), this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that Nitin Kumar was appointed as Peon on 06.11.2006 on contract basis against the provisions of the then prevalent R&P Rules, wherein there was no provision for appointment on contract basis, however, having carefully perused judgment rendered in Dila Ram’s case (supra), which has been upheld up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that in terms of provisions contained in the Act, person belonging to the category of person with disability is necessarily not required to be given job on regular basis. If 2025:HHC:44131 -8- the judgment passed in Dila Ram’s case (supra) is perused in its entirety, it clearly suggests that same is based upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Federation of the Blinds case (supra), wherein while dealing with Section 33 of the Act, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Section 41 of the Act mandates the appropriate Government to frame incentive schemes for employers with a view to ensure that 5% of their workforce is comprised of persons with disabilities. Hon’ble Apex Court in afore judgment further held that conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 41 makes clear that while Section 33 provides for minimum level of representation of 3% in the establishments of appropriate Government, the legislature intended to ensure 5% representation in the entire workforce, both in public as well as private sector. Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that intention of the legislature while framing the Act can also be inferred from the Draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2012. Though Hon’ble Apex Court held that scope of identification comes into picture only at the time of appointment of a person in the post identified for disabled persons and is not necessarily relevant at the time of computing 3% reservation under Section 33 of the Act, but intention of the legislature is clearly to reserve in every establishment under the appropriate Government, not less than 3% of the vacancies in the cadre strength for the persons or class of persons with 2025:HHC:44131 -9- disability, of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability. Relevant Paras of afore judgment read as under: “34. In this regard, another provision of the said Act also supports this interpretation. Section 41 of the said Act mandates the appropriate Government to frame incentive schemes for employers with a view to ensure that 5% of their workforce is composed of persons with disabilities. The said section is reproduced hereinbelow: “41. Incentives to employers to ensure five per cent of the workforce is composed of persons with disabilities.—The appropriate Governments and the local authorities shall, within the limits of their economic capacity and development, provide incentives to employers both in public and private sectors to ensure that at least five per cent of their workforce is composed of persons with disabilities.” 35. Thus, on a conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 41, it is clear that while Section 33 provides for a minimum level of representation of 3% in the establishments of appropriate Government, the legislature intended to ensure 5% of representation in the entire workforce both in public as well as private sector. 36. Moreover, the intention of the legislature while framing the Act can also be inferred from the Draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2012, which is pending in Parliament for approval. In Chapter 6 of the Bill viz. Special Provisions for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, similar sections like Sections 32 and 33 in the Act have been incorporated under Sections 38 and 39 which are as under: “38. Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.—Appropriate Governments shall— (a) identify posts in establishments under them which can be reserved for persons with benchmark disability as mentioned in Section 39; (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review and revise the list of identified posts, taking into consideration developments in technology. 39. Reservation of posts for persons with benchmark disabilities.—(1) Every appropriate Government shall reserve, in every establishment under them, not less than 5% of the vacancies meant to be filled by direct recruitment, for persons or class of persons with benchmark disability, of which 1% each 2025:HHC:44131 -10- shall be of all posts reserved for persons with following disabilities— (i) blindness and low vision (with reservation of 0.5% of the vacancies for each of the two disabilities), (ii) hearing impairment and speech impairment, (iii) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured and muscular dystrophy, (iv) autism, intellectual disability and mental illness, (v) multiple disabilities from among (i) to (iv) above including deaf blindness: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) If sufficient number of qualified persons with benchmark disabilities are not available in a particular year, then the reservation may be carried forward for up to the next three recruitment years, and if in such succeeding recruitment years also a suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, then the post in the fourth year may be first filled by interchange among the categories of disabilities; and only when there is no person with any benchmark disability available for the post in that year, the vacancy may be filled by appointment of a person, other than a person with benchmark disability.” A perusal of Sections 38 and 39 of the Bill clarifies all the ambiguities raised in this appeal. The intention of the legislature is clearly to reserve in every establishment under the appropriate Government, not less than 3% of the vacancies for the persons or class of persons with disability, of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability.” 9. In Nitin Kumar’s case (supra) though petitioner argued that since at the time of his appointment against the post in question, Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Peon nowhere provided for appointment on contract basis, as such, he ought to have been given appointment on regular basis, but Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding Nitin Kumar’s case (supra), who falls within the 2025:HHC:44131 -11- category of Persons with Disabilities, took specific note of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Federation of the Blinds case (supra) and returned categorical finding that object of 1995 Act will not be fulfilled by making temporary, ad hoc or contract appointments, rather such an interpretation will make the very purpose of Section 33 of the Act otiose. The reservation mandated under Section 33 of the Act will necessarily mean to provide employment, which has permanency attached to it and that can only be by way of regular appointment. Relevant Para of Nitin Kumar’s judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “13. Thus, keeping in view the object of 1995 Act there is no hesitation to hold that the purpose of reservation of posts under Section 33 of 1995 Act will not be fulfilled by making temporary, ad- oc or contract appointments. Such an interpretation will make the very purpose of 1995 Act otiose. The reservation mandated under Section 33 of the Act will necessarily mean to provide employment, which has permanency attached to it and that can only be by way of regular appointment. 14. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, admittedly, petitioner is suffering from 90% hearing impairment and also was appointed against the backlog vacancies for persons with disability. Thus, petitioner is entitled for all protection as envisaged under 1995 Act. View from any perspective the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on regular basis from very inception. 15. In view of the above discussions, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 6.11.2006. The respondents are further directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent No.2.” 9.1. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered in Nitin Kumar’s case (supra) has attained finality, rather respondents 2025:HHC:44131 -12- themselves by issuing addendum has treated appointment of Nitin Kumar as regular from the date of his initial appointment. 10. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment passed in Nitin Kumar’s case (supra), which is apparently based upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Federation of the Blinds case (supra), judgment dated 16.05.2023 came to be passed in Dila Ram’s case (supra), wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court while setting aside the rejection, directed the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of his appointment against the post of Clerk on regular basis with all consequential benefits. As has been observed hereinabove, judgments rendered in both Nitin Kumar’s case (supra) as well as Dila Ram’s case (supra) which squarely apply to the case of the petitioner, have attained finality and stand implemented by the respondents-State. 11. In view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner being similar situate to the petitioners in Nitin Kumar and Dila Ram cases (supra) is required to be given similar treatment. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned orders dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) and 22.03.2025 (Annexure P- 2025:HHC:44131 -13- 11) are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. his initial appointment against the post of Clerk on regular basis with all consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge