2025:HHC:23896 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3130 of 2020 Reserved on: 03.07.2025 Date of Decision: 23.07.2025 Dr. Rattan Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus The Registrar, Himachal Pradesh University ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “a) The respondent-University may kindly be directed to give regularization to the applicants from the date when they become eligible to be appointed as regular incumbents as per the prevalent policy at the relevant time meaning thereby, the services of the applicants No. 1 and 2 should have been regularized on 18.10.2012 as they have been appointed on contract basis on 18.10.2004, when the eight years contract service policy came into force, whereas applicant No.3 should have been regularized on 6.9.2010 as per the policy prevalent 2 at that time as he was appointed on contract basis as on 6.9.2002 and not from the date i.e. 9.9.2014, which has been picked up/depicted in the impugned order, Annexure A-9 by the respondent-University while carrying out a colorable exercise just to defeat the legitimate right of the applicants to get regularization after rendering service of eight years, which is violative of article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India with all consequential benefits, thereby re-fixing the pay of the applicants, seniority etc. etc. b) The respondent-University may kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Associate Professor to the applicants as per the University Grant Commission from the date when they become eligible. c) The respondent-University may kindly be directed to consider the seniority of the applicants for the promotion to the post of Professor as the applicants have rendered about more than 12 years service of Senior Research Officers, which is equivalent to the post of Associate Professor from the date when they become eligible. d) The respondent-University may kindly be directed to grant advance increments for M.Phil./Ph.D to the applicants as per communication/letter dated 28th September, 2017 from the date when they become eligible.” 2. The Himachal Pradesh University, Summer Hill, Shimla (for short, “the HPU”) had undertaken a project named 3 Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies (for short, “IIHS”) under the ‘UGC’ scheme. 3. Petitioner No.1 was engaged as Research Associate on 18.10.2004 on contract basis. Petitioner No.2 was initially engaged as Project Fellow on contract basis on 18.10.2004 and then w.e.f. 01.11.2005, he was engaged as Research Associate. Similarly, the engagement of petitioner No.3 initially was as Researcher on contract basis w.e.f. 06.09.2002, however, he was engaged as Research Associate w.e.f. 01.12.2005. 4. The aforesaid engagements of the petitioners were in the IIHS. 5. The petitioners were seeking regularization of their services and having failed to get redressal of their grievance from HPU, the petitioners had approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for relief. 6. On abolition of the Tribunal, original applications filed by the petitioners were transferred to the files of this Court and were decided by this Court vide judgment dated 18.04.2012 in following terms: “Petitioners approached this Court seeking regularization of their services. Petitioners were appointed as Research Associate with the Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies, a project undertaken by the Himachal Pradesh University, under the U.G.C. Scheme. Initially respondents opposed the petition 4 on the ground that since petitioners were not employees of the University, their services could not be regularized. But however there are subsequent developments. My attention is invited to the communications from which it is evidently clear that now the respondents/University has decided to continue with the establishment of the Institute and the issue of continuation and regularization of the services of the petitioner(s) can be easily addressed to by the University itself. 2. On 28.3.2011, a notification was issued by the Director, Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies, H.P.U. to the following effect:- “The Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor, HPU/President, IIHS has been pleased to allow to continue the Institute beyond 31.3.2011 as such for the financial year 2011-2012 or till the funds are available in the Institute whichever will be earlier as per the decision of the Executive Committee of IIHS in its meeting held on 3rd March, 2011.” 3. Subsequently the respondent/University itself has issued a communication dated 9.9.2011 which reads as under:- “To The Director, IIHS, H.P. University, Shimla-5. Sir, This is with reference to your note dated 16.7.2011 and to inform you that the matter has been examined in detail and it has been decided that the Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies (IIHS) may be made a permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of the H.P. University under the provision of Ordinance 24.6 of the University. 5 You are, therefore, requested kindly to submit the proposal to the Deans of Faculties, Academic Council and Finance Committee/Executive Council accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Admn.)” 4. The Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies has also sent a communication to the Dean of Studies, Himachal Pradesh University on 4.2.2012, requesting that the Institute be treated as part of the Himachal Pradesh University and the staff on the establishment be treated at par with the University employees. Now the respondent-University is required to take a final decision on this issue. 5. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the University has already taken a favourable decision with respect to two such like similar Institutes, which aspect shall be kept in mind while deciding the petitioners grievances. 6. Consequently, present petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondent-University to consider the petitioners’ case for continuation of the Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies as a permanent Multi-Disciplinary Research Institute of the Himachal Pradesh University and also the issue of their continuance/absorption/regularization therein. All consequential benefits shall be made available to the petitioners once a decision is finally taken by the respondent-University. Needful be positively done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is open for the petitioners to bring out their individual grievances to the respondent-authorities which shall also be considered within the aforesaid period.” 7. The HPU did not comply with the judgment dated 18.04.2012 passed by this Court, which gave occasion to the 6 petitioners to approach this Court by filing contempt petitions repeatedly. The last of the contempt petition filed by the petitioners was COPC No.11 of 2016, COPC No.3 of 2016 and COPC No.12 of 2016. The aforesaid contempt petitions were decided on 09.11.2016. 8. The HPU regularized the service of the petitioners w.e.f. 09.09.2014 in the pre-revised pay-scales. Since the petitioners have been pressing for their claims, the HPU allowed the revised pay-scales to the petitioners w.e.f. 09.09.2014 in terms of notification dated 06.12.2016. 9. The petitioners by way of instant petition are claiming their regularization immediately on completion of 8 years of contract service, which in the cases of petitioners No.1 and 2 will date back to 18.10.2012 and in the case of petitioner No.3 from 06.09.2010. 10. The petitioners are also praying for other reliefs as noticed above. 11. The HPU has filed reply and is contesting the claim of the petitioners. It is alleged that the claim of the petitioners is time barred as their services were regularized on 09.09.2014, but they had assailed the order in November 2017. It is also contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is barred by principle of res judicata as by order dated 09.11.2016, passed by 7 the contempt Court in COPC No.11 of 2016, it was held that the judgment dated 18.04.2012 passed by this Court stood complied. 12. The HPU has further taken a stand that the petitioners had been offered appointment on regular basis w.e.f. 09.09.2014 in IIHS as a matter of compassion. It is alleged that HPU had complied with the judgment passed by this Court on 18.04.2012, though, belatedly. As per the HPU, three posts of Research Officers and five posts of Project Officers for regularization of existing research staff of IIHS, including the petitioners were created and notified vide notification dated 02.08.2014 in pre-revised scale. The State Government had issued notification dated 04.04.2013, whereby instructions/guidelines for regularization of contract appointees were prescribed. The HPU had adopted the aforesaid instructions/guidelines vide notification dated 08.08.2013. Accordingly, the services of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 09.09.2014. 13. The HPU has also submitted that the petitioners had represented for grant of revised pay-scales at par with equivalent corresponding teaching posts. The HPU in compliance to the orders passed by this Court from time to time, had issued notification dated 16.03.2015 read with notification dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the petitioners were granted revised pay- 8 scales w.e.f.16.03.2015. Since, the petitioners were still not satisfied, the HPU vide order dated 19.09.2016 allowed the revised pay-scales to the petitioners from the date of regularization i.e. 09.09.2014 14. As regards the matter relating to promotion of the petitioners and grant of advance increments, the stand of HPU is that their cases were under consideration. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 16 The HPU has admitted that the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 09.09.2014 and for such purpose the creation of posts was notified on 02.08.2014. Thus, it by no means can be said to be an act of compassion by HPU in favour of the petitioners as averred in the reply of said respondent. The aforesaid relief was granted by the HPU to the petitioners on finding them entitled. 17. It is clear from the order dated 18.04.2012, passed by this Court that the direction was not to show compassion, rather the said order was passed in the backdrop of the facts where a communication had been issued by the HPU, whereby it had decided to continue with the establishment of IIHS and also the continuation and regularization of the services of the petitioners. 9 18. Noticeably, it had taken more than 28 months for HPU to take the decision as against the direction of this Court to do so in 3 months. Once, the HPU had taken a decision to implement the judgment dated 18.04.2012 passed by this Court and further when the stand of HPU is that the regularization was granted to the petitioners in terms of the regularization Policy of the State Government as adopted by the HPU, it cannot turn around to say that since the posts were created on 02.08.2014, the petitioners could not be regularized from the earlier dates. 19. The regularization Policy dated 04.04.2013 of the State Government, which only has been referred to in the reply of HPU, was not the only guidelines/instructions regarding regularization of contractual staff. Before 04.04.2013 many such instructions/guidelines were issued by the State Government. It is not the case of HPU that for the first time such guidelines were adopted by it on 08.08.2013. Once, the HPU had made itself bound with the guidelines/instructions of the State Government dealing with the regularization of employees, it ought to have complied with such instructions in letter and spirit. It could not apply such guidelines/instructions by pick and choose. 20. The HPU was under direction to comply with the judgment dated 18.04.2012 within 3 months. Assumingly, it could not comply with the direction within time granted, it could have 10 either sought leave of Court for extension of time or shown justifiable reasons for delay in the matter beyond reasonable limits. 21. Intentional, deliberate and unjustified delay on the part of HPU had repeatedly drawn the attention of this Court in contempt jurisdiction on the petitions of the petitioners filed repeatedly. So much so that a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with one such contempt being COPC No.11 of 2016 vide order dated 13.07.2016 was constrained to observe as under: “14. ………..This Court, after perusing various directions passed by this Court from time to time, has no doubt in any manner to conclude that respondents at every step has made an attempt to defeat the directions contained in the judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No.634 of 2008. The petitioners in the instant petitions have leveled serious allegations against the respondents- contemnors, which clearly suggests that some of the officials working in HPU are hell-bent or to ensure that present petitioners are not granted benefits in terms of judgment passed by this Court and thereafter decision taken by the Executive Council of the University, pursuant to various orders passed by this Court……….. This Court would have probably ignored the aforesaid specific allegations made by the petitioner with regard to defiant and arrogant attitude of the officials of the University, but after perusing copy of noting i.e. Annexure P-19, this Court has every reason to believe that there are certain disgruntled officials of the University, who deemed themselves to be above law and they all are hell-bent to ensure that the 11 judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed by this Court is not taken to its logical end. Vindictive attitude of the respondents clearly reflects from the noting given on the file pertaining to the release of revised pay scale with regard to petitioners wherein Registrar of the respondents-University states that “till and so long the contempt petition is not taken till then the regularization/joining of the petitioner will not be notified.” Ultimately, when this aforesaid noting came to the notice of the Vice Chancellor of the University, he reversed the remarks and noting given by the Registrar. Though, there is much more contained in the Contempt Petition suggestive of defiant and autocrat/dictatorial attitude of the officials of the respondent-University, but this Court purposely has chosen to highlight few, as has been pointed above. This Court, at this stage, has reasons to believe that the respondents have no respect, whatsoever, for law and directions contained in the judgment passed by this Court and respondents willfully, intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by this Court from time to time.” 22. Thus, the HPU cannot be allowed to take the benefit of its wrongs more particularly to deny the rightful claim of the petitioners. Since, as per Regularization Policy, the petitioners were entitled to regularization on completion of 8 years and the HPU being under direction of this Court to regularize them, could not deny the benefit only on the ground that the posts were created later. Slackness on the part of HPU in implementation of the judgment of this Court and delaying the creation of posts will not come in the way of the petitioners. Hence, they are entitled to 12 regularization from the date, they completed 8 years of contract service. 23. The objection of the HPU that the petition is time barred cannot be sustained. This Court is dealing with the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No specific limitation is provided for exercising writ jurisdiction. It is not a case where the petitioners had abandoned their claim for long and then approached the Court. Record reveals that even after being regularized, the petitioners have been pressing their claim and they were granted the revised pay- scales prospectively in the year 2015 and later on their further persistence, an order was issued in the year 2016 granting the petitioners benefit of revised pay-scales from the date of regularization i.e. 09.09.2014. Thus, the petition filed by the petitioners in the year 2017 cannot be said to be time barred. 24. Further, the objection that the petition is barred by principle of res judicata also deserves to be rejected. Whatever was observed in contempt jurisdiction cannot be read out of context. It was only for adjudicating the issues involved in the contempt petition. The claim of the petitioners for regularization from retrospective effect was neither considered nor decided by the Court in contempt jurisdiction. 13 25. The HPU has not specifically denied the claim of the petitioners for promotion and advance increments as per Rules. It is stated that their cases are under consideration. The HPU again cannot sit over the matter for indeterminate period; for that itself amounts to denial of right that vests in a regular employee in public employment. 26. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondent-HPU is directed to grant the regularization to the petitioners from the date when they had completed 8 years of contract service on notional basis for the purposes of counting such service for seniority and qualifying service. The respondent- HPU is further directed to take decision on the claim of the petitioners on promotion and advance increments within three months from the date of passing of this judgment. 27. The petition is accordingly disposed of so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge July 23, 2025 (vt)