IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2073 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Hitesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Prajwal Busta, Advocate, vice Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize services of petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.2020 for all intent and purposes including seniority etc. along-with consequential benefits. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to fix pay of Petitioner accordingly to increase pay scale, grant seniority and to calculate & pay the arrears consequent upon the regularization of service w.e.f. 30.09.2020.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4390 of 2021, titled as Kavita Rani and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 28.07.2022, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the afore case. She states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. In the case at hand, petitioner was initially appointed as TGT (Non-Medical) on contract basis, pursuant to batch-wise selection in the respondent-Department and posted at GSSS Dhawal, District Mandi, vide office order dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure P-1). Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that name of the petitioner figures at serial No.52. Since at that relevant time, there was no vacant post of TGT (Non-Medical) available in the said station, petitioner could not join at GSSS Dhawal, Mandi and applied for modification of order. Office order dated 29.09.2017 was modified vide office order dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure P-2), whereby petitioner was adjusted/appointed at GMS Lakshal under complex GSSS, Seri-chatigarh at Rahla, Mandi. Petitioner joined services on 16.10.2017, pursuant to afore office order dated 11.10.2017. After obtaining the requisite certificates, petitioner joined his services as TGT (Non-Medical) at station, detailed hereinabove. As per latest regularization policy issued by the State Government, vide notification dated 11.05.2018, the contractual appointees are to be regularized on completion of three years of service on contract basis, as such, petitioner was required to be regularized on completion of three years of contract service, as per the respective regularization policy of the State 3 Government. Sequel to regularization policy dated 11.05.2018, Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, issued an instruction with regard to regularization of contractual appointees vide letter dated 22.04.2020, wherein cut off dates for regularization of contractual appointments, who had completed three years of continuous service as on 31.03.2020 and 30.09.2020, were fixed by the Government, as a result thereof, TGTs who joined on 29.09.2017 and had completed three years of contractual service on 30.09.2020 were to be regularized as on 30.09.2020, whereas present petitioner, who had actually joined on contract basis on 16.10.2017 was not regularized w.e.f. 30.09.2020. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Prajwal Busta, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner had completed three years of his contractual service as on 29.09.2020, however, his services have been regularized w.e.f. 30.01.2021, as is evident from the regularization orders dated 30.04.2021. Though in terms of order dated 29.09.2017, petitioner had attempted to join at GSSS Dhawal, District Mandi, but since post at that station was not available, he applied for modification of appointment order, which ultimately came to be modified on 11.10.2017. After modification of order, petitioner joined at GMS Lakshal under complex GSSS, Seri- chatigarh at Rahla, Mandi, on 16.10.2017. Had petitioner joined at GSSS 4 Dhawal, District Mandi, pursuant to appointment letter dated 29.09.2017 on 29.09.2017 itself, he could have completed three years of contractual service on 30.09.2020, however, on account of non-availability of post at GSSS Dhawal, District Mandi, earlier order dated 29.09.2017 was modified vide order dated 11.10.2017, as a result thereof, petitioner could only join at new station on 16.10.2017, due to which, his regularization came to be delayed by six months. 5. Afore issue has been already adjudicated in detail in the judgment pressed into service and as such, no prejudice, would be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, being fully satisfied that judgment pressed into service by learned counsel representing the petitioner applies to the case of the petitioner, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order, thereupon 5 taking note of judgment, as detailed hereinabove and in case petitioner is found similar situate to the petitioner in afore case, then he shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)