IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.400 of 2022 Date of Decision: 21.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Praveen Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, thereby quashing advertisement dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure P-11). (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner No.1 to continue to work as Lab Assistant, petitioner No.2 as Lab Technician and Petitioner No.3 as Pharmacist at ECHS Polyclinic Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, till their attaining the age of superannuation.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petition, is that though petitioners have been working on contract basis for more than two years, but yet for no - 2 - cogent and convincing reasons, their services are being disengaged/replaced by another contractual employees. Since after the alleged discharge of the petitioners, respondent-Union of India by way of fresh advertisement again invited applications for appointment on contract basis, petitioners, who had been working without there being any complaint for more than two years, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs as reproduced herein above. 3. Since number of persons similarly situate to the petitioners were disengaged and their services were sought to be replaced by another set of contractual employees, they have approached this Court by way of different writ petitions. In some of the writ petitions, this Court stayed the fresh advertisement and directed the respondent-Union of India to maintain status quo qua appointment of the petitioner on contract basis. 4. Before afore cases could be heard and decided on their own merits, matter landed before the Full Bench on account of conflicting orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this court. Since Full Bench held in favour of the respondent-Union of India, some of the private parties, who are petitioners before this court, approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No. 36359 of 2016, wherein direction came to be issued to maintain status quo qua appointment of the private parties. Taking note of the aforesaid order - 3 - passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, number of writ petitions came to be disposed of with the direction that till the time SLP filed by private parties is decided, petitioners therein shall continue to render their services in their respective places, but their continuation shall abide by the outcome of the SLP. 5. Since petitioner herein is similarly situate to the petitioners in CWP No. 5383 of 2024, titled Dr. Prajesh Patial v. Union of India and Ors., and order, as detailed herein above, stands passed in their cases, learned counsel for the petitioner states that similar orders are required to be passed in the instant case, which fact has been fairly admitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, who is otherwise representing the respondent-Union of India in all the writ petitions, involving similar issues including the present petition. 6. This Court vide order dated 13.1.2022, directed the respondents not to fill up the posts of Lab Assistant, Lab Technician and Pharmacist on contract basis pursuant to advertisement dated 7.1.2022. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, under instructions, states that in deference to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents have not filled up the aforesaid posts. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to join and perform their duties qua the said posts, but - 4 - their continuation would be subject to the outcome of the afore SLP. Needless to say, in case petitioners fail to join qua the posts in question within fifteen days of the passing of the instant order, respondent would be at liberty to engage/appoint some new persons in their place. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge