1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.228 of 2026 Decided on : 23.04.2026 Uploaded on :24.04.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… Appellants Versus Raman Kumar and Others …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.2557 of 2025, titled Raman Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 29.08.2025, is a classic case of the State Government in digging in its heels and not applying its mind inspite of the fact that the matter stood settled conclusively by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench on an earlier occasion in CWP No.1007 of 2023, titled Sunil Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and CWP No.4365 of 2023, titled Prakash Chand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-8). Therein, the employees of Shri Sarswati 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sanskrit College, Dangar, District Bilaspur had approached this Court, on the ground that vide notification dated 17.06.2021 (Annexure P-5), the said Institute had been taken over by the State Government and re- named as Government Sanskrit College, Dangar. Accordingly, the employees had sought the relief that vide notification dated 25.08.1994, as per Clause-7, the services of the qualified teaching and non-teaching staff employed one year earlier who fulfill prescribed departmental recruitment and promotion rule conditions, prevalent at the time of taking over, would be considered for taking over. The relevant date as per the Clause is the date of taking over. 2. The Division Bench had rejected the defence taken by the State which was the revocation of the earlier notification and resultantly had directed consideration strictly in accordance with Clause-7 of the notification dated 24.08.1994. Resultantly, the order dated 06.01.2025 came to be passed by the Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh who rejected the case of the writ petitioners, present respondents in this appeal on the ground that they were not permanent employees of the College on the date of inspection, i.e., 10.04.2019 and having been made permanent on 01.08.2018 and 28.01.2019. Apparently, there was total non application of mind by the said Officer who only reproduced the operating part of the judgment for consideration without examining the judgment in sum and substance, which reads as under:- “7. The State Government has issued a notification dated 25.08.1994, whereby the terms and conditions for taking over privately managed colleges in the Pradesh 3 (affiliated) including Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff have been framed. Clause-7 of aforesaid terms and conditions reads as under:- "(7) The services of only qualified teaching and non- teaching staff appointed one year earlier who fulfil, prescribed departmental recruitment and promotion rule conditions, prevalent at the time of taking over will be considered for taking over subject to the approval of the State Public Service Commission or Departmental Screening Committee from the date of taking over. The services of the Principal will be taken over only us Senior most Lecturer of the College concerned subject to above mentioned the proviso. The Government scales in respect of the respective categories shall be permissible to them after the take over.” 8. In CWP No. 1007 of 2023, petitioner has filed CMP No. 7348 of 2024 and has placed on record a copy of communication dated 07.11.2022 from Principal, Government Sanskrit College, Dangar, to Director of Higher Education, H.P. No rebuttal was sought to be placed on record by the respondents/State to the aforesaid communication dated 07.11.2022 from Principal, Government Sanskrit College Dangar, to the Director of Higher Education. 9. It is evidently clear from the aforesaid correspondence dated 07.11.2022 that all the petitioners had been working with the Sanskrit College for more than one year before the issuance of notification dated 17.06.2021 whereby the said college has been taken over by the State. In addition, it is also clear from the said communication that all the petitioners continued to serve the college even after it was taken over w.e.f. 17.06.2021. 10. Respondents in their reply filed in both the petitions have taken common grounds viz. the revocation of notification dated 17.06.2021 and the ineligibility of 4 petitioners for the purposes of taking over of their services. 11. As regards, the revocation of notification dated 17.06.2021 is concerned, the same pales into insignificance now on account of the latest decision of the State Government dated 20.03.2024 to withdraw the revocation notification dated 28.06.2023. Thus, it cannot be disputed now that the Sanskrit College stands taken over by the State Government w.e.f 17.06.2021. 12 The State Government, vide Clause-7 of notification dated 25.08.1994, has taken decision to take over the services of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of taken over Institutions, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. In the case of petitioners, admittedly, respondents have not undertaken any exercise to consider the taking over of the services of the petitioners despite the fact that they have been allowed to continue serving Government Sanskrit College, Dangar, even after 17.06.2021. In absence of such exercise, it does not lies in the mouth of respondents to raise objections as to the eligibility of the petitioners.” 3. Thus from the reading of the above, it would be clear that the Co-ordinate Bench had come to the conclusion that the date of taking over, i.e., 17.06.2021, as such was the relevant date in question in view of the wording of the notification which the State itself is to follow and is bound by it. Inspite of that the case for consideration was rejected leading to the filing of the petition bearing No.CWP No.2557 of 2025 which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge, on 29.08.2025, which is now the subject matter of the present appeal. 5 4. In its usual manner, the same argument was sought to be raised against the terms of the notification by the counsel for the State that the eligibility would be of the date of inspection dated 10.04.2019 as held out in the order which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. The said argument is again being repeated that the date would be when the process was started on 08.04.2019 which is de- hors the notification in question which was examined minutely by the Co- ordinate Bench and resultantly the learned Single Judge imposed costs of Rs.25,000/-. 5. Learned Single Judge, while reproducing the relevant Paragraphs, as we have also done, came to the conclusion that though, in para-13 of afore judgment, direction came to be issued to the respondents to undertake an exercise to consider the taking over of services of the petitioners w.e.f. 17.06.2021, but if entire judgment is read in its entirety, Division Bench of this Court categorically arrived at a conclusion that petitioners herein are entitled for taking over their services strictly in terms of Clause-7 of the notification dated 25.08.1994. If it is so, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the respondents to pass impugned order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-10), which is nothing, but reiteration of grounds taken by the respondents in the reply filed to petition at hand as well as in earlier petition decided by Division Bench of this Court and in such circumstances, cost of Rs.25,000/-, was imposed. 6. In view of the above, we are thus of the firm opinion that this third round of litigation is absolutely unnecessary as the State is under a 6 bounden duty to comply with its own notification and not drag the employees to the Court who are entitled for the benefits as per its own Rules. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with an another additional cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the appellants/State to the respondents. Ordered accordingly. 7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) April 23, 2026 (KS) Judge