IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.21 of 2026 Decided on : 04.08.2026 State of HP and Anr. ...Appellants Versus Harish Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.06.2024, passed in CWP No.8775 of 2023, titled Harish Kumar Vs. State of HP and Anr., whereby the writ petition preferred by the present respondent has been allowed and the present appellants/respondents before the learned Single Judge have been directed to count the seniority of the writ petitioner/present respondent from the date of his initial appointment against the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacy) on a contract basis and to consider the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- said service rendered by the writ petitioner/present respondent i.e from the date of his appointment on contract basis till his regularization for the purpose of promotion. 2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the writ petitioner/present respondent had been initially engaged as a Lecturer (Pharmacy) {later designated as Assistant Professor (Pharmacy)} by the Director-cum-Principal of Government Pharmacy College, Rohru vide letter dated 07.10.2010. The said appointment of the writ petitioner had been made in view of the exigencies pointed out in the reply filed to the writ petition by the present appellants i.e in order to ensure that teaching and training of students does not suffer. From a perusal of the reply, specifically to reply qua paras 3 and 4 of the petition on merits, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed as per the R&P Rules. The aforesaid appointment had been made under the Student Welfare Fund. 3. Vide notification dated 03.10.2015, which was further clarified vide letter dated 21.10.2015 the present appellants had taken over the services of all teaching and non- teaching employees engaged on hourly, period-basis, and lecture-basis through the Student Welfare Fund, Institute -3- Management Committee(s), and other schemes up to 31.07.2015 (i.e., date of closing of Academic Year 2014-15) in Government Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and Industrial Training Institutes of the Department of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training. In terms of the aforesaid notification, on completion of 7 years/9600 hours of service under the Student Welfare Fund, the services of the writ petitioner rendered under the Student Welfare Fund were taken over on a contract basis. Vide notification dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P-3, page 38 of the writ record), in the R&P Rules, a provision for contract appointment, i.e., Rule 15- A, had been incorporated. 4. The services of the writ petitioner were taken over vide notification dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure P-4, page 49 of the writ record). The annual contract of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. Subsequent thereto, in terms of letter dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-5, page 53 of the writ record), the services of the petitioner, on contract basis, after having completed 3 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2021, was sought to be regularized. Regularization of the petitioner as an Assistant Professor (Pharmacy) was done -4- in terms of notification dated 28.04.2021 (Annexure P-6, page 56 of the writ record). 5. The writ petition wherefrom the present appeal arises was filed in the month of November, 2023 wherein the benefit of seniority of service rendered on contract from 22.04.2017 till regularization on 30.03.2021 was sought by the petitioner. In order to justify the claim so made, reliance was placed on a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 03.08.2023, in CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors., a/w connected matters. 6. In the response filed, the specific objection taken qua reliance placed on the judgment passed in Taj Mohammad, was that the same is sub-judice before the Apex Court. It is an admitted position that the Special Leave Petition so preferred against the judgment in Taj Mohammad’s case (cited supra) stands dismissed and the judgement has attained finality as on date. 7. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, reliance placed on the aforesaid judgment by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the claim of the writ petitioner/present -5- respondent for the purpose of seniority and consequential promotional benefits, cannot be faulted with. 8. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is bereft of merit, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 04th August, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)