2026:HHC:8358 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11081 of 2024 Decided on: 23.03.2026 Sanjay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. That the respondents may kindly be directed to take over the services of petitioner w.e.f. 8-7.2016 i.e. when approval was granted by Cabinet with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation, arrears, pension etc. b. That in alternate petitioner may be appointed as PGT (Mathematics) w.e.f. 22-09-2016, for which approval has been conveyed as per letter dated 22-09-2016 as done in case of other similar situated staff of Erstwhile College with all consequential benefits more particularly same may also be counted for pensionery benefits.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:8358 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of Swami Vivekanand College, Shivnagar, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. He was serving as a Lecturer in Mathematics, having been selected in accordance with the relevant Rules, by the Selection Committee. The petitioner was appointed as such vide appointment letter dated 18.12.1996. The College was taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Annexure P-3, notification dated 30.11.2015 with immediate effect. The decision to take over the services of the petitioner and similarly situated incumbents was taken on 22.09.2016 in terms of Annexure P-5. This was followed by office order dated 24.10.2016, in terms whereof the services of the petitioner were taken over on contract basis on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the decision to take over the services of the petitioner on contract basis was taken on 22.09.2016, yet this date is not being treated as the date on which the services of the petitioner stand taken over. This is being done despite the fact that in terms of Annexure P-8, notification dated 11.10.2025, in compliance to the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2336 of 2022, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, an incumbent, similarly situated as the present petitioner, was 3 2026:HHC:8358 ordered to be appointed on contract basis w.e.f. 22.09.2016 with all consequential benefits like regularization, pay fixation, seniority etc. 4. Accordingly, as was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the act of the respondents of not granting the same benefits to the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in light of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, as services of the petitioner have been regularized after 12.12.2003 and therefore, he will be entitled for service benefits from the date of regularization. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the reason which is being spelled out by the State to deny the reliefs being prayed for by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Herein the petitioner is not being seeking a mandamus qua date of his regularization. What is being sought by the petitioner is a mandamus that the date of his contract appointment should be construed as the date on which the Government took the decision to take over the services of the petitioner on contract basis. To fortress 4 2026:HHC:8358 his case, the petitioner is relying upon a notification which has been issued by the Government in the case of a similarly situated person, though in compliance to the orders passed by this Court. The very fact that regarding the services of an incumbent, similarly situated as the present petitioner, decision qua taking over of his services stands taken on 22.09.2016, this demonstrates that, in principle, may be in compliance to the judgment passed by this Court, the respondents agreed that such incumbents like the petitioner are entitled for taking over of their services w.e.f. 22.09.2016 on contract basis, for the purpose of benefits, which stands spelled out in notification dated 11.10.2023. In light of this fact, obviously, the petitioner cannot be discriminated against and he at least is entitled to similar and same treatment, as has been meted out to other similarly situated person, namely, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the direction that the respondents are directed to take over the services of the petitioner on contract basis w.e.f. 22.09.2016 instead of 24.10.2016, with all consequential benefits like regularization, seniority, pay fixation, arrears etc. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 23, 2026 (narender)