2026:HHC:3295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.459 of 2020 Decided on: 09.01.2026. ________________________________________________________ Seema Devi & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the petitioners: Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Seema Devi and five others have come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i). That the impugned orders of appointment of the applicants on contract basis may be quashed and set aside. (ii). That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant in view of the judgment dated 02.05.2012 rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in case C.W.P. No.7602/2010 titled Om Prakash Versus State of H.P. & others (Annexure A- 5) and consider them having appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on regular 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:3295 - 2 - basis instead of on Contract basis from the date of their initial appointment and allow all other consequential benefits including financial benefits.” 2. This Court had passed the following orders on 05.01.2026:- “Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers [TGT(s)] on contract basis. 2. Pursuant to the commencement of selection process in the year 2008-09, it is submitted that at the time of commencement of selection process the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of 1973 were in vogue which only provided for regular nomenclature of the post. It is averred that the State Authorities have issued the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of TGT(s) on 22.10.2009 [Annexure A-4] recognizing the contractual mode of appointment. It is further averred that once the contractual mode of appointment was recognized in the Rules only on 22.10.2009 [Annexure A-4], therefore, the aforesaid Rules cannot be applied in case of the petitioners who had a right to be appointed as TGT(s) under the 1973 Rules have regular basis for all purposes. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies 2026:HHC:3295 - 3 - upon judgment passed by this Court in Poonam Thakur & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No.521 of 2024, decided on 12.01.2024, which as per the Learned Counsel for the petitioner stands implemented vide order dated 23.08.2025 by the Director of School Education, whereby, the benefit of deemed regular appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers [TGT(s)] has been extended to similarly placed incumbents. 4. Faced with this situation, Learned State Counsel prays for and is granted four days’ time to have instructions. List the matter on 09.01.2026.” 3. The matter was listed on 05.01.2026 when Learned State Counsel was granted time to have Instructions. Accordingly, upon listing of the matter today [i.e. 09.01.2026] Learned State Counsel has placed on record Instructions dated 06.01.2026 along with Office Order dated 15.12.2025 [Taken on Record] whereby benefit of deemed regular appointment as TGT(s) have been granted to all the petitioners. 4. Perusal of Office Order and the Instructions as referred to above indicate that the benefit of deemed appointment has been given to the 2026:HHC:3295 - 4 - petitioners as well as non-petitioners (TGTs) from the date of their initial contract appointment by treating them as deemed regular employees from initial date in applicable pay scales. 5. So far as the monetary benefits are concerned, the order states that the monetary benefits will be applicable only to those petitioners who have filed their cases before the Court on or before the date of issuance of the orders. 6. Perusal of the material on record indicates that the instant petition was filed by the petitioner on 24.10.2016. 7. In the backdrop of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 274 [paras 8 to 10]; Union of India and Others versus Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 [paras 4 to 8]; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 [paras 11 to 13]; Asger Ibrahim Amin versus Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2016) 13 SCC 797 [paras 15 to 17]; and Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, (2022) 18 2026:HHC:3295 - 5 - SCC 144 [paras 12 to 14], and the directions contained in the order dated 15.12.2025 as referred to above; the petitioners herein are held entitled for consequential benefits including monetary benefits for a period of three years preceding the filing of the petition [w.e.f. 24.10.2013]. 8. 8. Per contra, Learned State Counsel states that as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the orders dated 15.12.2025 and the fact that petition was filed on 24.10.2016, therefore, admissible monetary benefits for a period of three years preceding the filing of the petition will be processed/released. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed in the following terms: (i). Office Order dated 15.12.2025, passed by Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh, entitling the petitioners-TGT’s as deemed regular TGTs from date of initial appointment is affirmed; (ii). Consequent upon the deemed regular 2026:HHC:3295 - 6 - appointment given in terms of order dated 15.12.2025, State Authorities are directed to re-fix the pay in the appropriate pay scale from the date of initial contract appointment as revised from time to time; (iii). State Authorities are directed to release the monetary benefits for three years preceding the filing of the instant petition w.e.f. 24.10.2013 onwards with all consequential benefits to the petitioners within two months in terms of the mandate of law in Tarsem; Shiv Dass; Yogendra Shirivastava; Asger Ibrahim Amin and Rushibhai J Pathak [supra]. (iv). Failure to release benefits including past arrears within above period shall mandate the respondents liable for interest at the rate of 6% per annum beyond the expiry of three months till realization; (v). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 09, 2026 [Shivender]