IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.623 of 2021 Date of Decision: 21.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vishal Kaundal ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Radhika Gautam, 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, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order of Direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue discharging his duties as Pharmacist at ECHS Polyclinic Type ‘D’ Bakloh situated at Bakloh Dalhousie Cantt. Till the post is filled up by a regular person. (b) Quash and set aside notification/policy framed in respect of employment of contractual employees at ECHS establishments dated 22/12/2017. (c) Quash and set aside advertisement dated 29/01/2021 through which the services of the contractual employee are being replaced by another contractual employee. (d) Direct the Respondents to consider the services and the number of years rendered by the Petitioner for appointment as a - 2 - regular employee, as and when the said post becomes available.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who has been working as Pharmacist at ECHS Polyclinic Type ‘D’ Bakloh, at Bakloh Dalhousie Cantt., is that though he has been working on contract basis for more than two years, but yet for no cogent and convincing reasons, his services are being disengaged/replaced by another contractual employee. Since after the alleged discharge of the petitioner, respondent-Union of India by way of fresh advertisement again invited application for appointment of Pharmacist at afore station on contract basis, petitioner, who had been working without there being any complaint for more than two years, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs as reproduced herein above. 3. Though petitioner, at the time of issuance of notice, had prayed for staying the advertisement issued by the respondent for fresh recruitment on contract basis, but such prayer of him was not accepted, however parties were directed to maintain status quo. 4. Since number of persons similarly situate to the petitioner 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- - 3 - Union of India to maintain status quo qua appointment of the petitioner on contract basis. 5. 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 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 herein shall continue to render their services in their respective places, but their continuation shall abide by the outcome of the SLP. 6. 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 - 4 - all the writ petitions, involving similar issues including the present petition. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join and perform his duties qua the post of Pharmacist at afore station, but his continuation, if any, would be subject to the outcome of the afore SLP. Needless to say, since petitioner, who admittedly, prior to his filing of the petition, stood discharged from service, fails to join qua the post in question within seven days of the passing of the instant order, respondent would be at liberty to engage/appoint some new persons in his place. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge