IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4341 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Parveen Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i. That order dated 12-04-2024 (Annexure P-10) and Annexure P-11 Dated 13-01-2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. That respondents may be directed to release/pay the full commission as were being paid to him since from his appointment at CHC Dheera, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. iii. That respondents may be directed to grant RKS contract to petitioner on completion of three years of service and regular pay scale on completion of eight years of service strictly as per notification dated 28-03-2016 with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation etc. and arrears accrued in the favour of petitioner may also be released with favour of petitioner may also be released with 9% interest throughout or in alternate services of petitioner may be regularized as per 2 contract policy of state government and as per direction contained in Anant Ram Judgment. iv. That respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to work as Lab Technician on its original terms and conditions and on the same salary/commission in which he was working since from his appointment at CHC Khaira, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. v. Those respondents may also be directed to obey their own policy of regularization in its true letter and spirit and benefits of policy may also be extended to petitioners. vi. That respondents may further be directed to extend similar treatment to petitioner as given to other similar situated staff working in IGMC and Medical College Tanda.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that in the year 2015, petitioner was appointed as Lab Technician under RKS at CHC Khaira, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Vide notification dated 28.3.2016, respondents decided to convert the services of RKS employees on contract after completion of three years service. Though pursuant to afore notification, number of employees working at IGMC Shimla were granted regular pay scale in terms of notification and their services were converted into regular/contract, but since despite petitioner’s having completed three years service, afore benefit was not granted to him, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 864 of 2022, titled Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 4.10.2023, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 1660 3 of 2020, titled as Anant Ram and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 15.6.2023 (Annexure P-8). 3. Pursuant to afore direction, respondents considered the case of the petitioner afresh, but rejected the same vide order dated 12.4.2024 (Annexure P-10) on the ground that judgment passed in Anant Ram’s case, has not attained finality because LPA filed by the respondents-department is still pending adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court. After passing of the aforesaid order, Member Secretary RKS CHC Khaira vide order dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-11), disengaged the petitioner with immediate effect, subject to final outcome of the decision in Anant Ram’s case. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-side aforesaid order and direct the respondents to grant benefit in terms of judgment passed in Anant Ram’s case, which has been neither stayed nor set aside by the superior court of law. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though this Court after having carefully examined the grouse of the petitioner passed order dated 4.10.2023 in CWP No. 864 of 2022, thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Anant Ram (supra), but respondents ignoring aforesaid direction proceeded to reject the case of the petitioner on flimsy grounds. 4 5. While making this court peruse judgment dated 15.6.2023 passed by this Court in Anant Ram (supra), Mr. Vikas Rajput, stated that issue otherwise sought to be raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore case and as such, respondents could not have rejected his case, especially when judgment passed in Anant Ram (supra) has not been stayed by the superior court of law. While making this court peruse order dated 12.4.2024 (Annexure P- 10) passed in purported compliance of judgment dated 4.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 864 of 2020, Mr. Rajput stated that there is no discussion, if any, with regard to findings and observations given by this Court in Anant Ram’s case and as such, same being totally contrary to the judgment passed by this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further stated that vindictive attitude of the respondents towards the petitioner can be well gauzed from order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the Member Secretary of RKS CHC Khaira, whereby he after passing of order dated 12.4.2024, proceeded to disengage the petitioner from service without affording him opportunity of hearing. He submitted that since it is not in dispute that post of Lab Technician qua which petitioner is working, may be in the capacity of worker of society, is very much available, there was no occasion, if any, to terminate the services of the petitioner, which act of the respondents clearly suggests that petitioner has been punished for his having approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 5 6. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-society while justifying the impugned action of respondent/RKS, submitted that since mandate contained in Anant Ram’s case has not attained finality, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing order dated 12.4.2024 (Annexure P-10). He further submitted that services of the petitioner as Lab Technician are not required and as such, he has been rightly terminated vide order dated 13.1.2025. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially order dated 12.4.2024 (Annexure P-10), passed in purported compliance of judgment rendered in CWP No. 864 of 2020, this court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner that same is not in conformity with the mandate contained in afore judgment, mere filing of LPA against the judgment passed in Anant Ram’s case, cannot be said to be sufficient to oust the petitioner. Till the time, judgment passed in Anant Ram’s case is stayed, varied, modified or set aside, respondents have no option, but to follow the same considering case of the petitioner in light of Ashok Kumar (supra). If the judgment passed in Anant Ram’s case is read in its entirety, it can be safely said that issue otherwise sought to be decided already stands adjudicated in the instant proceedings. If it is so, in that eventuality, case of the petitioner otherwise could not have been rejected by the respondents. 6 8. The act of respondent No. 2 in disengaging the services of the petitioner, without there being any such direction in order dated 13.1.2025, passed in purported compliance of order dated 4.10.2023, appears to be a vindictive action and this court is compelled to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s services have been disengaged either as a result of mis-interpretation of order dated 13.1.2025 or to punish the petitioner for having approached court of law. Strangely, the petitioner came seeking a relief for converting his services to Government contract and met with disengagement of his services. If such act is not interfered with, a common man will think twice before approaching court of law, thereby defeating the Constitutional right to legal remedies. Otherwise also, while passing order dated 12.4.2024, Director Health Services was not to decide the issue with regard to requirement, if any, of the petitioner to continue as a Lab Technician in RKS Khaira, rather question was with regard to his entitlement to be brought on government contract on the basis of judgment passed in Anant Ram’s case, however, it appears that governing body of RKS of the Hospital concerned, misinterpreting the order dated 12.4.2024 passed by the Director Health Services in compliance of order dated 4.10.2023 and with a view to teach lesson to the petitioner for approaching court, proceeded to terminate his services, which otherwise was totally uncalled for. 9. If the reply filed by the respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5, is read, it nowhere suggests that work of Lab Technician against which 7 post petitioner was working prior to his approaching the competent court of law has ceased to exist. Even if it is presumed that prayer, if any, made by the petitioner for converting his services to government contract can only be decided after decision of Anant Ram’s case, there was no reason, if any, for the respondents to disengage the petitioner from the post of Lab Technician, against which he was appointed after following due selection process. 10. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 12.4.2024 and 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-10 & P-11), are quashed and set-aside. Respondent-society is directed to reengage the petitioner forthwith against the post, he was working prior to his disengagement vide order dated 13.1.2025. Director Health services is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of Ashok Kumar (supra) but taking note of observations made in the instant order. Needless to say authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking note of judgment rendered in Anant Ram’s case, which till date, has not been disturbed /interfered by the superior court of law. July 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge