Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 432 (HP)

Devi Singh v. State of H. P.

2023-11-02

RANJAN SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. The petitioners, who were appointed as teachers, initially through Parents Teachers Association (PTA) under the H.P. Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, 2006 and as per the Government Policy were later brought on Government Contract; and were regularized on same posts belatedly, have come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to strictly implement policy decision dated 11.05.2018 and judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed in CWP No. 342/2021 (Annexure P-1) to regularize the services of the petitioners from due date or w.e.f. the date their juniors/contract teachers have been regularized i.e. 01.04.2018 alongwith all the consequential benefits for all intent and purposes. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent to fix the pay of the petitioners accordingly and to calculate and pay arrears of salary consequent upon regularization of service from due date alongwith seniority etc, in service. 2. Case of the petitioners as submitted by the learned counsel is, that being eligible, the petitioners were initially appointed as teachers between June 2006 to October, 2007, against sanctioned posts of Lecturer (School Cadre) and Diploma in Physical Education (DPE) under the Director of Higher Education and as Physical Education Teachers (PET) and Drawing Master under the Director of Elementary Education, in the schools of the State Government, in accordance with their eligibility under the Parents Teacher Association (Grant-in-Aid) Rules, 2006. Learned counsel submits that as per the Government decision dated 16.08.2013, the teachers including the petitioners who were appointed through respective PTA’s and who had completed 7 years of such services were brought on government contract, in the month of January, 2015. 3. He submits that while working as Teachers, on contract basis, the State Government further took a decision on 11.05.2018, for regularizing the services of PTA contractual teachers on completion of three years of contractual service w.e.f. 1.4.2018 and though the respondents have granted the regularization to many other similarly placed and even junior incumbents from due date i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.2018 but the respondents were granted the benefit of regularization to the petitioner(s) in the month of August 2020 belatedly has resulting in treating the equals as unequal which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter in issue, as to whether the contractual PTA-incumbents were to be granted regularization on completion of three years of contractual service, in terms of the Government decision dated 11.05.2018 w.e.f. 1.4.2018, the date on completion of three years of contractual service as PTA, stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, alongwith other connected matters, titled Yashwant Singh & Ors versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., decided on 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-6). 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the SLP i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6966 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Yashwant Singh & Ors, filed by State Authorities stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.4.2023; and the judgment in the case of Yaswant Singh (supra), also stands implemented by the respondents. 6. In the backdrop of the facts mentioned in Paras 1 to 5 above, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the respondents have granted the regularization to the teachers from the date of completion of three years of contractual service w.e.f 1.4.2018 to many similarly placed incumbents including juniors then, the denial of similar benefit of regularization from the date of completion of three years of contractual service to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.2018 [instead of granting them regularization w.e.f. August 2020], is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The denial of regularization to the petitioner(s) w.e.f. 1.4.2018 has resulted in depriving the petitioners of the benefits of higher pay and higher fixation w.e.f. 1.4.2018 in the unrevised scale and now in the revised scale after issuance of the HPCS (Revised Pay) Rules on 3.1.2023 and this has also resulted in denying the benefit of eligibility and grant of ACP on completion of 4 years of service from an earlier date i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.2022 and denial thereof is a recurring loss, every month, till day. 8. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, at this stage, submits that the delay in granting regularization to the petitioner(s) and others from the due date was in view of the pendency of litigation in CWP No.6916 of 2011, titled as Pankaj Kumar vs. State of H.P., before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was decided on 17.04.2020. 9. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, at this stage, submits that the delay in granting regularization to the petitioner(s) and others from the due date was in view of the pendency of litigation in CWP No.6916 of 2011, titled as Pankaj Kumar vs. State of H.P., before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was decided on 17.04.2020. 9. Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts and circumstances and the request, so made by the learned counsel, on instructions, prays for permission to make a representation to Respondent No.1-Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed by the State Counsel also. 10. Accordingly, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation to the Respondent No.2- Director of Higher Education, and in case of the petitioners [who are PET and Drawing Master] to the Respondent No.-3-Director of Elementary Education, within three weeks from today; with directions to the aforesaid respondents-authorities to consider/examine the case of the petitioner(s) in light of the judgment, passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra); against which the SLP filed by State Authorities-Respondents stands dismissed and the judgment has been implemented in case of many other and even juniors, and then to pass appropriate orders, without discriminating the petitioners herein, in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter and not later than 8.1.2024. . 11. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the merits of the matter and all questions of facts of law are left open. As aforesaid, the instant writ petition, as well as, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.