1 2026:HHC:20448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 49 of 2026 Date of decision: 26.05.2026 ________________________________________________________ Union of India & others ...Appellants Versus Dr. Ram Narayan Thakur …Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Union of India takes exception to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 7378 of 2014, titled as Dr. Ram Narayan Thakur Vs. Union of India & others, dated 17.09.2025, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his services as Lecturer (now re- designated as Assistant Professor) was allowed from the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e. from October 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2014 and he was granted all consequential benefits. The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within eight weeks from the date of passing of the judgment. 2. Learned Single Judge has noticed that the petitioner-employee was holder of Ph.D Degree since 1991 and also a possessor of the Degree of Doctorate in the subject of History and he had been exploited to serve the respondents at meager and paltry sum of Rs. 39,000/- per month. 3. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shripal & another Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, to grant the benefit while noting that the petitioner-employee had been working with the present appellants, was teaching the subject of History since 2001, had put in more than 13 years of service and was called upon to participate in the fresh selection process. 4. It has also come to our notice that at the time of the decision of the writ petition, the writ petitioner had already put in more than 24 years of 3 service and on an average, 280 students in the subject of History were available in each academic session from the year 2013 to 2016 in the ‘Sansthan’ and one Dr. D.D. Mahapatra had remained posted in the Institution to teach the subject of History for less than two years. 5. The defence as such of the appellants that there was no vacant sanctioned post to teach the subject of History in the “Sansthan”, was also falsified by the documents placed on record by the employee alongwith CMP (M) No. 3227 of 2019, whereby 17 faculty and 13 non-faculty posts were created with the approval of the competent authority way back in the year 2000. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said findings are incorrect since the creation of the posts on 07.11.2000 (Annexure P-23) was only on part-time, wherein it has been mentioned that one of the posts of Part-Time Lecturer of History was created. Accordingly, he has again stressed that there was no regular sanctioned post. 7. Perusal of the application, i.e. CMP No. 3227 of 2019, whereby the additional documents were 4 sought to be placed on record before the learned Single Judge, would go on to show that on 27.04.2011 (Annexure P-24), as many as 31 posts of Assistant Professors in lieu of PGT/Junior Lecturer/Research Assistants/TGTs were created in the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100+6000 AGP plus usual allowances. 8. Perusal of the record, would go on to show the said application bearing CMP No. 3227 of 2019, whereby the additional documents were sought to be placed on record, was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2019 and it was observed that the relevance of the additional documents would be considered at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. 9. Vide order dated 18.03.2025, it was noticed that at the time of allowing the aforesaid application, it was observed that the effect of the documents placed on record would be seen at the time of final hearing and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India sought time to have instructions on the relevance of the documents placed on record by the petitioner. 5 10. On 02.05.2025 and 01.08.2025, time was again taken by the Union of India to seek necessary instructions on the relevance of the documents placed on record by the petitioner. Ultimately, the judgment was reserved on 30.08.2025. 11. Thus, more than sufficient opportunities were given to the Union of India to rebut the creation of 31 posts of Assistant Professors in the year 2011 when the writ petitioner had already put in 20 years of service. Nothing was done to adjust him against the said post and now the argument sought to be raised is that there was no regular sanctioned post. 12. The Apex Court in Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 65 has held that sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven, but these are to be created by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned 6 posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need.” 13. Further, the Apex Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, has held that if over a long period of time, the employee as such is in service, he would expect the State to Act positively and, therefore, the principle of legitimate expectation also would arise, if the employee like the petitioner being in continuous service for the last 25 years has given his whole lifetime for service. 14. Apparently, during the pendency of the writ petition, 31 posts of Assistant Professors were created and the petitioner’s case was also pending consideration before this Court, the writ petition having been filed in the year 2014. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that Dr. D.D. Mahapatra, whose name figures in Annexure P-24, had also served in the said Institution. 15. Thus, it was within the discretion of the Union of India to create the said post. The work, as 7 noticed, has been continuous and it is disheartening to notice that the subject of History was being taught through not a regular sanctioned post, in spite of regular admissions of about 280 students during each academic session from the year 2013 to 2016. 16. In Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025, titled as Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & others Vs. the State of Assam & others, decided on 21.05.2026, reference was made to the earlier judgment of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, wherein it had been held that a model employer is expected to uphold the dignity of the employees at the lowest pedestal of heirachy and to avoid exploiting their precarious position. Reference was also made to the principle of legitimate expectation to compare it with the principle of promissory estoppel while relying upon a three Judge Bench Judgment in National Buildings Construction Corporation vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors, (1998) 7 SCC 66. 17. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that for their own inaction, the Union of India now cannot take up the stand that there 8 was no vacant regular sanctioned post and regularization cannot be done. It was for the Union of India to take effective steps to create the post, even if it is supernumerary in nature, to comply with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which does not suffer from any infirmity. 18. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. May 26, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.