IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2557 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raman Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioners: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “i. That the impugned office order dated 06.01.2025(Annexure P-10) vide which the case of the petitioners for taking over their services has been rejected may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice; ii. That after quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 06.01.2025, the respondents may 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 kindly be directed to take over the services of the petitioners as per their qualifications against the post of Clerk, Darashanacharya and Peon w.e.f. 17.06.2021 with all consequential benefits which also includes monetary benefits on account of arrear of salary which are admissible to the petitioners; iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the salary to the present petitioners w.e.f. 17.06.2021 till date; iv. That the respondents may kindly be directed not to disengage/ dispense with the services of the petitioners which they are rendering in Government Sanskrit College Dangar w.e.f. 17.06.2021 continuously.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record, are that in the year 1982, Shri Sarswati Sanskrit College, Dangar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sanskrit College’) came to be established by society, which was registered under Co-operative Societies Act. Vide notification dated 25.08.1994, Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-1), framed terms and conditions for taking over privately managed colleges in State of Himachal Pradesh (affiliated including teaching & non-teaching staff). Afore notification dated 25.08.1994 came to be partially modified vide notification dated 8.10.2015 (Annexure P-2), wherein sub para(v) of para (9) came to be modified providing therein that services of the staff will be taken over 3 on contract basis. Petitioners herein, who were initially appointed as Clerk, Darashanacharya and Peon, respectively on temporary basis in the years 2017 and 2018 were regularized against the post Clerk, Darashanacharya and Peon in erstwhile Sanskrit college on 01.08.2018 and 28.01.2019, respectively. Vide communication dated 08.04.2019, Joint Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, issued a letter to the Principal of erstwhile privately managed Sanskrit College for inspection of records, evaluation and working out the modalities for taking over erstwhile Sanskrit college (Annexure P-3). On 10.04.2019, Inspection Committee conducted inspection and prepared a report on evaluation and working out the modalities for taking over the erstwhile Sanskrit college (Annexure P- 4). 3. Vide notification dated 17.06.2021, Government of Himachal Pradesh took over the erstwhile Sanskrit College alongwith teaching as well as non-teaching staff (Annexure P-5). After two years of issuance of notification dated 17.06.2021, Government of Himachal Pradesh again issued notification dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure P-6), thereby withdrawing its earlier decision to take over the college, but again vide Notification dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-7) college was taken over and since then same is being run by the government. 4 4. Since services of the petitioners, who were working in the erstwhile Sanskrit College w.e.f. 2017-2018 were not taken over, they filed similar civil writ petition bearing CWP No.1007 of 2023, titled Sunil Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matter, which came to be disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-8). Division Bench of this Court taking note of Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, whereby government had decided to take over the services of teaching and non-teaching staff, allowed the petitions, thereby directing respondents to undertake an exercise to consider the taking over of services of the petitioners w.e.f. 17.06.2021 strictly in terms of the Clause-7 of the notification dated 25.08.1994 as amended/modified from time to time within a period of four weeks, from the date of the production of the order. Division Bench of this Court further directed that for those of the petitioners, who qualify the conditions as per Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, necessary orders for taking over their services w.e.f. 17.06.2021 shall immediately be issued and the unpaid salaries alongwith other service benefits shall also be granted to them within four weeks thereafter. 5. Since despite there being aforesaid clear cut directions issued by Division Bench of this Court, nothing was done, petitioners filed contempt petition bearing COPC No.546 of 2024 (Annexure P-9), 5 but before same could be taken to its logical ends, respondent-State produced the copy of order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-10), thereby stating that though cases of the petitioners were considered for taking over, but since they were not found eligible in terms of Clause 7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, decision has been taken not to take over their services. In the afore back ground, contempt petition was closed qua the present petitioners, who now by way of instant petition has laid challenge to order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-10). 6. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that once Division Bench of this Court, while passing judgment dated 31.05.2024 had found petitioners eligible for taking over their services in terms of notification dated 25.08.1994, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and in that regard, specific direction was issued to the respondents to undertake an exercise to consider the taking over of services of the petitioners w.e.f. 17.06.2021 in terms of Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, 6 there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to reject the case of the petitioners. 8. While making this Court peruse judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that though in operating part word ‘considered’ came to be used, but if afore judgment is read in its entirety, Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that petitioners entitled for taking over their services in terms of Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, subject to satisfaction of the conditions contained therein. While making this Court peruse notification dated 25.08.1994, especially Clause 7 (Annexure P-1), Mr. Sharma, states that services of those qualified teaching and non-teaching staff appointed one year earlier, who fulfill, prescribed departmental recruitment and promotion rule conditions prevalent at the time of taking over are/ were to be taken over, but respondents wrongly interpreting aforesaid provision, have stated in their reply that persons, desirous of taking over their services ought to have been working one year prior to inspection conducted by Joint Inspection Committee. 9. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather attempt has been made 7 to refute the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they are not entitled for taking over in terms of Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994 because they were not engaged one year prior to the date of inspection conducted by Joint Inspection Committee for taking over the college in question. 10. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to judgment dated judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1007 of 2023, especially para No.13 of the judgment, submitted that there was no positive direction to take over the services of the petitioners, rather respondents were directed to undertake an exercise to consider the taking over the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 17.06.2021 strictly in terms of the Clause 7 of notification dated 25.08.1994. He submitted that since petitioners do not satisfy/fulfill the conditions as contained in the notification dated 25.08.1994, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-10). However, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute that respondents have wrongly interpreted Clause 7 of notification dated 25.08.1994. 11. Entire controversy in the case at hand revolves around interpretation of Clause 7 of notification dated 25.08.1994 (Annexure P-7).To ascertain the correctness of rival submissions made with 8 regard to interpretation of afore notification, it would be apt to take note of Clause 7 of the notification dated 25.08.1994, which reads as under:- “The services of only qualified teaching and non- teaching staff appointed one year earlier who fulfill, prescribed departmental recruitment and promotion rule conditions, prevalent at the time of taking over will be considered for taking over subject to the approval of the State Public Service Commission or Departmental Screening Committee from the date of taking over. The services of the Principal will be taken over only as Senior most Lecturer of the College concerned subject to the above mentioned proviso. The Government scales in respect of the respective categories shall be permissible to them after the takeover.” 12. H Having carefully perused aforesaid Clause contained in notification dated 25.08.1994, this Court is fully persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that services of such qualified teaching and non-teaching staff were to be taken over in terms of notification dated 25.08.1994, who had been working one year prior to taking over of the college. There is nothing to suggest in this Clause that teaching and non-teaching staff desirous of taking over their services ought to have been recruited one year prior to date of inspection. 13. At this stage, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that at the time of taking over college, petitioners herein were not permanent employee of the 9 college, rather they came to be regularized against the post Clerk, Darashanacharya and Peon on 28.01.2019 and 01.08.2018, meaning thereby they had actually not completed one year service, prior to date of inspection i.e. 10.04.2019. However, having carefully perused Clause 7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and as such, submissions made by him deserves outright rejection. 14. Clause 7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, nowhere suggest distinction, if any, between regular and temporary employee, rather expression used is “only qualified teaching and non-teaching staff appointed one year earlier prior to date of taking over”. There is no specific mention that only such of the staff, who was permanently employed, would be considered for taking over, subject to their having joined the institution concerned one year prior to taking over. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioners herein were initially appointed in the years 2017 and 2018 and their services were regularized in the years 2018 and 2019, whereas college was taken over vide notification dated 17.06.2021 that means petitioners herein had been working one year prior to taking over the college, if it is so, their services were required to be taken over by the college, in any situation. 10 15. Though, this Court is of the definite view that relevant date for adjudication of the claim of the petitioners is date of taking over, but even if it is presumed that date of inspection was also important for taking over the services of the petitioners, this Court finds that petitioners herein stood engaged in the college in question one year prior to date of inspection, may be on temporary capacity. As has been already observed that Clause 7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, nowhere makes any distinction between temporary and regular employee and as such, analogy sought to be applied by the respondents being totally absurd deserves outright rejection. 16. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioners herein have been unnecessarily compelled to approach this Court by way of fresh petition because bare perusal of judgment dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by Division Bench of this Court, which has attained finality, clearly suggest that issue, which is now sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated in afore judgment. At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of relevant paras of aforesaid judgment herein below:- “9. It is evidently clear from the aforesaid correspondence dated 07.11.2022 that all the petitioners had been working with the Sanskrit College for more than one year before the issuance of notification dated 17.06.2021 whereby the said college has been taken over by the State. In addition, it is also clear from the said communication that all the petitioners continued to serve the college even after it was taken over w.e.f. 17.06.2021. 11 10. Respondents in their reply filed in both the petitions have taken common grounds viz. the revocation of notification dated 17.06.2021 and the ineligibility of petitioners for the purposes of taking over of their services. 11. As regards, the revocation of notification dated 17.06.2021 is concerned, the same pales into insignificance now on account of the latest decision of the State Government dated 20.03.2024 to withdraw the revocation notification dated 28.06.2023. Thus, it cannot be disputed now that the Sanskrit College stands taken over by the State Government w.e.f 17.06.2021. 12. The State Government, vide Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, has taken decision to take over the services of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of taken over Institutions, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. In the case of petitioners, admittedly, respondents have not undertaken any exercise to consider the taking over of the services of the petitioners despite the fact that they have been allowed to continue serving Government Sanskrit College, Dangar, even after 17.06.2021. In absence of such exercise, it does not lies in the mouth of respondents to raise objections as to the eligibility of the petitioners. 13. In light of above discussion, these petitions are allowed by directing respondents to undertake an exercise to consider the taking over of services of the petitioners w.e.f. 17.06.2021 strictly in terms of the Clause-7 of the notification dated 25.08.1994 as amended/modified from time to time within a period of four weeks, from the date of the production of this order. It is further directed that for those of the petitioners who qualify the conditions as per Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, necessary orders for taking over their services w.e.f. 17.06.2021 shall immediately be issued and the unpaid salaries alongwith other service benefits shall also be granted to them within four weeks thereafter”. 17. Though, in para-13 of afore judgment, direction came to be issued to the respondents to undertake an exercise to consider the 12 taking over of services of the petitioners w.e.f. 17.06.2021, but if entire judgment is read in its entirety, Division Bench of this Court categorically arrived at a conclusion that petitioners herein are entitled for taking over their service strictly in terms of the Clause-7 of the notification dated 25.08.1994, if it is so, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the respondents to pass impugned order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-10), which is nothing, but reiteration of grounds taken by the respondents in the reply filed to petition at hand as well as in earlier petition decided by Division Bench of this Court. 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to take over the services of the petitioners against the post of Clerk, Darashanacharya and Peon respectively w.e.f. 17.06.2021 alongwith all consequential benefits. Since petitioners have been fighting for their rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant order shall be done expeditious, preferably within a period of six weeks. 19. Since it is quite apparent from the record as well as findings returned by this Court in the instant judgment that petitioners herein were unnecessarily dragged into the instant limitation and they 13 have been rendering their services in the college concerned w.e.f June, 2021 till passing of impugned order dated 06.01.2025 without any salary, this Court finds it expedient and in the interest of justice to burden respondents-State with a cost of Rs. 25000/- payable to the petitioners. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 29,2025 (shankar)