Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2906, 2908, 2912, 2914, 2990, 2992 & 2994 of 2024 Date of decision: 09.01.2025
1. CWP No.2906 of 2024 Hitesh Bhimta.
...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
...Respondents.
2. CWP No.2908 of 2024 Virender Kumar.
...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
...Respondents.
3. CWP No.2912 of 2024 Swarn Singh.
...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
...Respondents.
4. CWP No.2914 of 2024 Anita Rani.
...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
...Respondents.
5. CWP No.2990 of 2024 Naresh Kumar.
...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
...Respondents.
6. CWP No.2992 of 2024 Ganga Thakur.
...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
...Respondents. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2-
7. CWP No.2994 of 2024 Sunil Kumar.
...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
...Respondents.
Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. B. Nandan Vasishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate
General,
for respondent No.1-State. : Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent-University. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The petitioners preferred their representations to respondent No.2 in February, 2024 with a request to count the contractual services rendered by them for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. Prayer was made in light of the law laid down in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others1. Respondent No.2 rejected the representations on 19.02.2024, giving occasion to the petitioners to institute these writ petitions seeking (i) Quashing of order dated 19.02.2024; and (ii) For 1CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023
-3- directing the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension etc. 2. In Taj Mohammad’s1 case, it was held that if the initial appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointees continued on the post uninterruptedly till regularization of their service in accordance with the Rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for the purpose of seniority and the same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the Rules applicable to substantive appointments. 3. Respondent No.2-University, in its reply filed to the writ petitions, has admitted that petitioners’ appointment to the posts in question were in accordance with law. According to the respondent-University, the petitioners were appointed as Clerks on compassionate ground. The posts were filled-up after completing and adhering to all codal formalities prescribed under the applicable Recruitment &
-4- Promotion Rules. Details of petitioners’ appointments and regularization are tabulated as under:- Sr. No. Case No. Date of appointment Date of regularization 1 CWP-2906 of 2024 10.10.2011 07.06.2017 2 CWP-2908 of 2024 22.04.2013 07.06.2017 3 CWP-2912 of 2024 21.04.2017 16.10.2020 4 CWP-2914 of 2024 20.09.2016 01.05.2020 5 CWP-2990 of 2024 09.06.2014 03.10.2017 6 CWP-2992 of 2024 30.06.2014 03.10.2017 7 CWP-2994 of 2024 20.10.2016 01.05.2020
4.
In view of the facts given out in the reply filed by respondent No.2, the case of the petitioners for counting of their contractual service towards seniority, increments and pension etc. is covered in light of the decision rendered in Taj Mohammad’s1 case. Notwithstanding this, respondent No.2 rejected the representations of the petitioners on 19.02.2024 by merely stating that “judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Court in any case depends upon the factual position and circumstances of that particular case vis-à-vis its governance with rules/regulations. Thus, the judgments varies case to case and the same cannot be construed as base to give a common relief to the persons other than the petitioners. Besides, as of now, no common policy/ instructions
-5- regarding granting of such relief to all similar situated employees have been issued yet by the State Government. Accordingly, no relief as sought for in your representation can be granted and as such the same is rejected.” Respondent No.2 was not to pass a mechanical order. He was to decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law on the basis of facts involved, which he failed to do. Merely stating that application of judgment will depend upon factual position of the case, but not examining the factual position of the cases of the petitioners vis-à-vis law laid down in the judgment, yet rejecting the representations, cannot be justified. 5. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated 19.02.2024 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the decision rendered in Taj Mohammad’s1 case to the petitioners or in other words, the contractual service rendered by the petitioners followed by regularization be counted towards seniority, increments and pensionary benefits. Respondent No.2-University is also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- to each of the petitioners for mechanically
-6- rejecting their cases without even applying any mind to the
facts of the cases. The costs be paid to the petitioners within two weeks from today. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 9th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)