IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2396/2024 Decided on: 07.08.2025 Sanjeev Sharma & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Petitioners were employees of three privately managed schools. These schools were in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government. Petitioners were accordingly being released 95% of their salaries from such grant-in-aid received by the schools from the State Government. Grant-in-aid was released to the petitioners till the year 2012. Services of the petitioners were thereafter taken over along with several other such 95% aided staff by the State Government as per provisions of State Policy dated 20.07.2011. Petitioners instituted Sanjeev Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Ors.2 seeking directions to the respondents to take over their services as per notification dated 25.08.1994. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.09.2023 reserving liberty to the petitioners to represent to the respondents with their grievances with further direction to the respondents to consider such representation within time bound schedule. Representation so preferred by the petitioners on 12.10.2023 was rejected by the respondents on 12.12.2023, hence, the petitioners have instituted this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The sole contention urged for the petitioners is that their services were required to be taken over in terms of notification dated 25.08.1994. Had the respondents taken over petitioners’ services under the said notification, the service rendered by the petitioners in the 95% aided schools would have been counted for the purposes of seniority and all other consequential benefits viz. pay and arrears etc. Services of the petitioners in that eventuality would have been taken over by the respondents on the posts of Senior Assistant (for petitioner No.1) and Junior Assistant (for petitioners No.2 & 3). Learned counsel for the petitioners’ inviting attention to notification dated 04.01.2007 (Annexure P-13) pointed out that the respondents 2 CWPOA No. 7118/2019 decided on 16.09.2023 3 had taken over the services of staff of a 95% aided school under notification dated 25.08.1994. 4. Notification dated 25.08.1994 has been placed on record at Annexure P-6. The said notification had been issued by the State Government framing terms and conditions “for taking over ‘privately managed colleges in the State (affiliated) including their teaching and non-teaching staff”. The said notification has no applicability to the cases of the petitioners, who had been serving in privately managed schools aided to the extent of 95% by the State Government. Further, services of the petitioners were taken over by the respondents admittedly under policy/guidelines circulated on 20.07.2011 subject to terms & conditions mentioned therein. The said policy has been placed on record at Annexure P-7. The policy is regarding taking over of 95% aided schools. In terms of the policy, services of employees both teaching and non-teaching in the 95% aided schools were to be taken over in situations, (A) where management was willing to transfer the school alongwith movable and immovable assets to the State Government & (B) where the management was unwilling to handover the school. In both the situations, services of teaching and non-teaching employees in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government could be taken over subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. Some of the 4 relevant conditions are: - “(3) The services of the staff working in 95% aided schools shall be taken over as a fresh appointment on regular basis on minimum of pay scale of the post. However, their salaries shall be protected as a measure personal to them. The past service rendered in aided institutions shall not be counted for any other intent and purpose i.e. seniority, pensionary benefits and leave etc. They will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.” and (7) The management and teaching and Non-teaching staff of the aided institution are required to furnish individual affidavits duly countersigned by the concerned Teshildar/SDM of the concerned area, to the Education Department on the above point.” The respondents along with their reply have placed on record the affidavits furnished by all the petitioners giving their willingness to be absorbed in the respondents-Education Department as per terms and conditions of the guidelines/policy for taking over their services as employees of 95% aided schools. Some relevant portion from the undertakings given by the petitioners at the time of taking over of their services is as under: - “1. That I am willing to be absorbed in the Department of Education, HP as per the term and conditions of the guidelines to take over the services of the employees of 95% aided schools. 2. That I am willing to work as fresh appointee, on regular basis on minimum of the pay scale of the post. If my salary is protected as a measure personal to me. I will not claim any seniority, pensionary and leave benefits from the Government in 5 lieu of the services rendered in 95% aided privately institution prior to taking over my services. 3. That I work as Principal/ Headmaster in 95% Government aided institute prior to taking over my service as per the terms and conditions of the guidelines for taking over services of employees of 95% aided institution. I will accept the post of Lecture TGT as per eligibility and R&P Rules applicable to the post. 4. That I will not claim any benefits in any way for the past services rendered in private institution after taking over my services…….” The petitioners had themselves furnished their affidavits that their past services rendered in 95% aided institutions were not liable to be counted for the purposes of seniority, pensionary benefits and leave etc. That after taking over of their services, they would work as fresh appointee on regular basis on minimum of pay-scale of the post with their salaries protected as measure personal to them. The notification dated 04.01.2007 will also not advance the case of the petitioners. Under the said notification, services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of erstwhile DAV College, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una were taken over along with an attached Senior Secondary School in terms of notification dated 25.08.1994. Also, petitioners have themselves placed on record a notification issued by the State on 05.12.2011 (Annexure P-8) taking over services of 95% aided staff of several privately managed & 95% aided schools in accordance with 20.07.2011 circular/guidelines/policy. Petitioners were also employees of 6 erstwhile 95% aided schools, they had consented & had furnished affidavits for taking over their services as per terms & conditions of 20.07.2011 guidelines/policy. It is not their case that while taking over their services, the respondents-State had discriminated them qua all other 95% aided staff of their school & of several other schools whose services were taken over on same terms and conditions stipulated in 20.07.2011 guidelines/policy. No other point was urged. 5. In light of above facts, contention of petitioner that their services were required to be taken over under notification dated 25.08.1994 is without any merit. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 07th August, 2025(rohit)