Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16491 (HP)

Vijay Parmar v. State of Himachal Pradesh Coram

2026-04-06

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That the Respondents may kindly be directed to give all consequential benefits of the post of Principal (School Cadre), Class-I Gazetted, with effect from the actual date they were placed and assumed charge as Principals on placement basis, by modifying the notification dated 8.5.2025 Annexure P-2, to the extent mentioned supra; and to confer upon them actual benefits, including arrears of pay of the period for which the petitioners have actually and factually worked as Principal (School Cadre) along with allowances, and all consequential service and pensionary entitlements, at par with the 284 similarly situated incumbents who were granted such actual benefits Vide Notification dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice and to uphold the principles of equality and fair treatment under law.” 2. The controversy involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioners while serving as Headmasters were called upon to perform the duties of Principals, in terms of communications dated 11.04.2017, 14.11.2018 and 26.03.2021. Though, these communications are not on record, however, the same have been made available by learned counsel for the petitioners for the perusal of the Court, which are ordered to be taken on record. The relevant portion of these communications, reads as under:- “The Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order that the Headmasters shall hold the Charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre) in their existing pay scales and they shall not be entitled for any remuneration for holding the charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre) with immediate effect in the public interest.” 3. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-2, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioners have been promoted as Principal (School- Cadre) on regular basis with immediate effect and on notional basis from the date they assumed the charge of the post of Principal on placement basis. 4. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-2, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioners have been promoted as Principal (School- Cadre) on regular basis with immediate effect and on notional basis from the date they assumed the charge of the post of Principal on placement basis. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that when similarly situated Headmasters, who were also earlier placed against the post of Principal were regularized vide Annexure P-1, dated 28.12.2018, their regularization was made from the date of assuming the charge of the said office i.e., from the actual date of their joining as Principal, on placement basis, whereas, in the case of the present petitioners, the promotion has been conferred on regular basis with immediate effect and on notional basis from the date they assumed the charge of the post of Principal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to Annexures P-1 and P-2, argued that the act of the respondent- State of treating similarly situated persons with different yardstick is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that there was no difference between the Teachers mentioned in Annexure P-1, as compared to the petitioners, either qualitatively or otherwise. The said incumbents were also serving as Headmasters and the petitioners were also serving as Headmasters. Whereas earlier, they were placed against the post of Principal, somewhere in the year 2016, the petitioners were placed as such in the year 2017 and thereafter, whereas, the services of the incumbents referred to in Annexure P-1 were regularized on 28.12.2018 from the date of assuming the charge of the said office i.e., from the actual date of their joining as Principal on placement basis, the petitioners have not been given the same benefit. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General referred to the reply filed by the State and submitted that there were certain matters regarding seniority, which were pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However, for the smooth running of the institution, the Headmasters were placed as Principals in their own pay scales and subsequently they stand regularized. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General referred to the reply filed by the State and submitted that there were certain matters regarding seniority, which were pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However, for the smooth running of the institution, the Headmasters were placed as Principals in their own pay scales and subsequently they stand regularized. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that the petitioners have no right to claim any actual monetary benefits from the date of assumption of charge as Principal, as is being claimed by them and while giving them the charge of Principals earlier, it was made clear that they will be holding the said charge in their existing pay scales. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit is this petition, the same be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings. 8. In the considered view of this Court, had it been a simple case where Headmasters, who were called upon to perform the duties of Principals with a clear rider that they shall be performing their duties on their existing pay scales, after subsequent promotion, were demanding benefit from retrospective date, then probably, there would have been some merit in the contention of the State. Herein, what the petitioners are pointing out is discrimination. They are pointing out by referring to Annexure P-1 and P-2, persons similarly situated as the petitioners are being treated with different yardstick by the State as compared to the petitioners. It is not the case of the State that persons whose names are there in Annexure P-1, when were placed as Principals, were placed with the assurance that once their services are regularized, they will be given all the benefits from the initial date of their placement. In fact, it is anybody’s guess that the terms and conditions of their placement as Principals were the same as were of the present petitioner. This is evident from the documents itself. That being the case, obviously, the State cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons. In fact, it is anybody’s guess that the terms and conditions of their placement as Principals were the same as were of the present petitioner. This is evident from the documents itself. That being the case, obviously, the State cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons. Once, in the case of those Headmasters, who were placed as Principals in the year 2016 and regularized in the year 2018, the conferment of promotion was from the date of assuming the charge of the said office i.e., from the actual date of their joining as Principal on placement basis, the State was bound to confer the same benefits to the petitioners also. Denial of similar treatment to the petitioners by the State is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State has not been able to spell out that there is any qualitative difference between the headmasters, who were placed as Principals, whose services were regularized vide Annexure P-1 as compared to the present petitioners to constitute a distinct class. Therefore, as similarly situated persons have been discriminated, the State cannot be allowed to get away with the same and obviously, the Court has to intervene. 9. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondent-State of conferring the promotion to the petitioners in terms of Annexure P-2 on regular basis with immediate effect i.e., w.e.f. 08.05.2025 and on notional basis from the date they assumed the charge of the post of Principal on placement basis is held to be bad and it is directed that the petitioners shall be conferred the benefit of regularization, as was conferred to their counterparts in terms of Annexure P-1, from the date of assuming the charge of the post i.e., from the actual date of their joining as Principal on placement basis with all consequential benefits. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.