Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 621 (HP)

Ram Gopal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-09-21

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - The petitioner was initially appointed as Shastri on contract basis, vide office order dated 04.11.2000 in the pay scale of Rs.1500/- alongwith usual allowances in Government Middle School Bharda, under Complex Government Senior Secondary School, Loh-Tikkari, District Chamba. His services were regularized by the State, vide Annexure P-3, i.e., office order dated 04.10.2010 with immediate effect. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that as his services stood regularized on the basis of policy of the Government in terms of which, the appointees, like the petitioner, were to be regularized upon completion of 8 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2009, petitioner ought to have been regularized with effect from 1st April, 2009, i.e., the date which is envisaged in the policy and not with effect from 04.10.2010, as has been done by the State. Accordingly, this petition has been filed with the prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of petitioner immediately post completion of 8 years' continuous service on contract basis. 3. The petition stands resisted by the State, inter alia, on the ground that though in the year, 2009, Government took a conscious decision to regularize such teachers who had completed 8 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2009, however, this per se did not confer a right to be regularized immediately post completion of 8 years of service and the same was to be done by the State after verifying the service record/documents by the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that regularization of all incumbents, otherwise also was to be done and was done by the State strictly on the basis of seniority and subject to availability of sanctioned posts. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well documents appended therewith. 6. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner have been regularized, vide office order dated 04.10.2010 with immediate effect. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well documents appended therewith. 6. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner have been regularized, vide office order dated 04.10.2010 with immediate effect. It is also not in dispute that this regularization has been done on the basis of instructions so issued by the Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 24.12.2009, in terms whereof, services of C&V teachers appointed in different subjects on special contract basis in GMS/GHS/GSSS against the sanctioned posts, were decided to be regularized upon completion of 8 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2009. 7. In my considered view, though copy of the aforesaid instructions dated 24.12.2009 are not on record, however, the contents of office order dated 04.10.2010, Annexure P-3, are self-speaking that all that these instructions contained was the decision of the Government to regularize the services of C&V teachers, who had completed 8 years' continuous service as on 31.03.2009. In other words, 31.03.2009, was the cut-off date to identify all candidates as to whether he or she fulfilled the criteria of 8 years' service so to be eligible to be regularized. This date ipso-facto did not confer upon a candidate a right of regularization in case he or she had completed 8 years of service on the said date itself. 8. This Court concurs with the submissions so made by the learned Additional Advocate General that regularization was to be subject to seniority as well as fulfilment of other formalities, like availability of posts etc., though it appears that petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any instance wherein person similarly situated as the petitioner, was ordered to be regularized immediately post completion of 8 years' service. Further, it has also not been pointed out that a person appointed after the petitioner on special contract basis, has been regularized before the petitioner. 10. In this view of the matter as this Court does not find any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.