2025:HHC:16780 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 544 of 2020 Reserved on: 26.05.2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Asha Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive relief: “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the present applicant from 01.01.2006 or in the alternate, the respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the present applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2008 on which date the present applicant has completed her 8 years of service, with all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher on contractual basis for 89 days vide office order dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:16780 27.09.1997. Her monthly emoluments were fixed at Rs.1500/-. The contract of the petitioner was not renewed. The petitioner represented to the respondents. When no action was taken on the representation of the petitioner, she approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1757 of 1999. The State Administrative Tribunal by way of an interim order directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in Government High School, Halau (Chopal) as Craft Teacher if the post was lying vacant and no regular hand had joined. In compliance, the petitioner joined Government High School, Halau (Chopal) as Craft Teacher on 03.06.1999. Since then, she has been continuously working as Craft Teacher/Drawing Master. 3. The services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2008 vide office order dated 29.04.2008. However, on 21.06.2008, the petitioner was issued a notice by 3rd respondent requiring her to show cause as to why the order of regularization of the services of petitioner be not withdrawn. It was mentioned that the said order had been issued inadvertently without seeking approval from the 3 2025:HHC:16780 Government. The petitioner submitted her reply raising objection to the proposed withdrawal of regularization orders. It was submitted that since the petitioner had completed 8 years of contract service, she was entitled for regularization. 4. The 3rd respondent vide communication dated 26.06.2008 requested the 2nd respondent to accord fresh sanction for regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2008. No action was taken on the said communication, instead the regularization order of the services of petitioner was withdrawn. The services of the petitioner were finally regularized on 15.12.2009. 5. Aggrieved against the acts of respondents, petitioner filed CWP No. 6438 of 2011 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.03.2015 with direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the averments contained in the writ petition read with the Rules occupying the field and to take a decision within six weeks. Again, the respondents did not decide the case of the petitioner, forcing her to file contempt petition being COPC No. 829 of 2015. The said petition was 4 2025:HHC:16780 also disposed of by order dated 04.11.2015, with direction to the respondents to comply with the directions dated 20.03.2015 passed in CWP No. 6438 of 2011 within six weeks. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing. The case of the petitioner was finally rejected vide office order dated 16.05.2016. 7. By way of instant petition, the petitioner is seeking regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or in alternative w.e.f. 01.01.2008. The case of the petitioner is that her services w.e.f. September, 1997 be considered as continuous or in alternative, since the petitioner has been continuously working w.e.f. 03.06.1999, the period of eight (8) years continuous service be considered from such date. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Despite the pendency of petition for more than 8 years, the respondents have not preferred to file their response. On 22.03.2025, the application of the petitioner for early hearing was allowed and the date for hearing was fixed as 25.05.2025, still the respondents have chosen to 5 2025:HHC:16780 remain silent. The only stand of the respondents, that is, available on record can be inferred from the office order dated 16.05.2016, whereby the case of the petitioner was rejected. The office order dated 16.05.2016 reveals an admission on the part of 3rd respondent to the effect that the petitioner had completed 8 years continuous service and for such reason her name appeared in the list of those contractual teachers who had completed 8 years of continuous service. It was also mentioned that due to long absence from duty and on account of inquiry thereof, the services of the petitioner were inadvertently regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2008 without seeking fresh approval from the Government, therefore, the order dated 01.01.2008 was withdrawn. 10. It otherwise is an established fact that the petitioner has rendered continuous service on contract basis w.e.f. 03.06.1999. The petitioner may not be entitled to benefit of the service rendered by her from 27.09.1997 to 26.12.1997 as there was a gap of about 18 months till the petitioner was re-engaged on the strength of order passed by the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. 6 2025:HHC:16780 11. It is not even the case of respondents that the service rendered by the petitioner after 03.06.1999 was not to be considered. Rather, it is on the basis of consideration of such service only that the service of the petitioner has finally been regularized on 15.12.2009. 12. Starting from 03.06.1999, the period of eight years was completed on 02.06.2007, whereafter the petitioner became eligible for regularization. The petitioner, in fact, was regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2008 vide office order dated 29.04.2008, which was later on withdrawn. The ground of withdrawal was that prior sanction of the Government had not been taken. The respondents have not been able to justify that for grant of benefit under the ‘Regularization Policy’, prior approval of the Government was required. Assumingly that such approval was required, it being an administrative act, had to be completed within reasonable time and for any delay, petitioner could not be penalized. It is also not the case of the respondents that there was no vacancy as on 01.01.2008. 13. In result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of regularization to the 7 2025:HHC:16780 petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2008 with all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 30th May, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge