JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking mainly following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents be directed to execute the agreement in pursuance to appointment of applicant on contract basis and to permit the applicant to join his duties as TGT Medical on contract basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Jhagtan, Shimla H.P. (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to take disciplinary action/strict action in accordance with law against erring officer/official for exceeding its powers and thereby depriving the applicant to avail legal right to be taken on contract basis w.e.f. 03.01.2015. Further the loss incurred to the applicant on account of illegal acts may kindly be ordered to be compensated from the erring officer/official. (iii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. (iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the favour of the applicant and against the respondents. 2. Petition was filed in November, 2018 before the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla bearing OA No. 7069 of 2018. Despite granting time by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, no reply was filed on behalf of respondents till abolition of the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. 3. After abolition of Erstwhile Tribunal, petition was transferred to this Court and was registered as present petition i.e. CWPOA No. 5636 of 2020. In August 2023, as a last chance four weeks’ time was granted to respondents/State to file reply and notices were issued to respondents No.4 and 5. Thereafter, matter was listed on 30.11.2023, 29.02.2024, 09.05.2024 and 18.07.2024, but respondents/State did not choose to file reply. 4. In the meanwhile, respondents No. 4 and 5 were also served. Respondent No.4 did not opt to contest the case and for non- representation on his behalf, he was proceeded ex-parte on 18.07.2024. Respondent No.5 did not file reply to petition. 5. In aforesaid circumstances, matter was heard on the basis of material placed on record with petition. 6. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a TGT (Medical) on PTA-GIA basis on 1.3.2016 and he completed more than 7 years of continuous service as PTA (GIA Rules 2006) in March, 2013. 5. In aforesaid circumstances, matter was heard on the basis of material placed on record with petition. 6. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a TGT (Medical) on PTA-GIA basis on 1.3.2016 and he completed more than 7 years of continuous service as PTA (GIA Rules 2006) in March, 2013. The State of HP took a policy decision to take over the services of PTA teachers on contract basis subject to terms and conditions notified and conveyed by the State vide communications dated 16.8.2013 and 24.5.2014 and instead of 8 years continuous service as PTA, the PTA teachers completing 7 years of continuous service were decided to be taken on contract as communicated vide letter dated 29.12.2014 (Annexure A-1). 7. Petitioner being eligible for taking over his services on contract basis was included in list of PTA teachers whose services were decided to be taken on contract on fixed salary of Rs.13,900/- vide Office Order dated 3 rd January, 2015 wherein name of petitioner was at Sr.No.355 (Annexure A-2). 8. In furtherance to aforesaid decisions of the Government and terms and conditions notified for taking over the services on contract, petitioner approached respondent No.4 with prescribed contract/agreement on 5 th January, 2015, (Annexure A-3) and medical fitness certificate dated 5 th January, 2015 (Annexure A-4) and requested him to take over his services on contract basis. 9. It is further case of petitioner that vide communication dated 3 rd January, 2015, in case of PTA teachers, the period of absence such as Extra Ordinary Leave availed for doing B.Ed/any other higher qualification required to be fulfilled under R&P Rules, Maternity Leave availed beyond 84/168 days (two separate spells of Maternity Leave), as the case may be, leave availed on medical ground should not be considered as break in service for the purpose of counting of qualifying period of 10 or 7 years for taking over services on contract of PTA teachers. It was further provided that period of 42 days on account of other reasons in a total period of 7 years service in PTA cases for taking their services on contract should not be counted as a break in service. 10. It was further provided that period of 42 days on account of other reasons in a total period of 7 years service in PTA cases for taking their services on contract should not be counted as a break in service. 10. It is claim of petitioner that during entire period of his PTA service, he availed only 37 days leave for completion of higher education and therefore, in terms of Policy of State communicated circulated vide letters dated 16.08.2013, 24.05.2014, 29.12.2014 and communication dated 3.1.2015 (Annexure A-5), petitioner was fully eligible for taking over his service on contract basis. 11. It is further grievance of petitioner that respondent No.4 without any authority and acting arbitrarily did not allow the petitioner to join on contract basis after completing the formalities including signing contract/agreement and accepting medical fitness certificate. 12. To substantiate his claim for conversion of his service on contract basis from 15.01.2015, reliance has also been placed by petitioner on an order dated 17.5.2016 passed by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 6044/2015 titled Sunil Kumar vs. State of HP and others whereby, in similar circumstances, respondents were directed to accept the joining of petitioner therein from due date and release the entire arrears due within 10 days, failing which petitioner was held entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount payable from the due date. Copy of order has been placed on record as Annexure A-6. 13. It is also claimed by petitioner that on account of denial of conversion of his PTA service into contract service in January, 2015, he has been deprived from regularization on completion of 3 years continuous service on contract basis on 31.03.2018 in terms of Policy/decision of respondents/State with respect to regularization of contract appointees circulated vide communication dated 11 th May, 2018 (Annexure A-7), whereas services of contractual appointees who had completed 3 years continuous service as on 31.09.2018 were also directed to be regularized with prospective effect observing all codal formalities and subject to formal terms and conditions contained in said communication. 14. 14. It has also been submitted on behalf of petitioner that delay on the part of respondents including the private respondents in converting of PTA service of petitioner into contract services, caused further loss to petitioner as on 22.01.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1426 of 2015 titled Pankaj Kumar vs. State of HP , the Supreme Court had directed to maintain status quo, till orders passed to the contrary, in the cases of taking over/conversion of PTA on contract basis. It is further case of petitioner that aforesaid order was modified by the Supreme Court on 13 th February, 2017 ordering that it was open to the State of Himachal Pradesh to make any appointment by following the competitive method/procedure by giving equal opportunity to all eligible candidates. Copies of these two orders have been placed on record as Annexure A-8 and A-9 and therefore, it has been contended that there was no stay operating against State Government or anybody else with respect to conversion/taking over of services of PTA-GIA teachers prior to 22.01.2015 and after 13.02.2017. It is also averred on behalf of petitioner that SLP(C ) No. 1426 of 2015 was also dismissed as withdrawn on9.3.2018. 15. In response to petition, though no reply has been filed, however, the Director of Elementary Education has placed on record the instructions dated 8 th May, 2024 through the Office of Advocate General alongwith copy of Officer Order dated 29 th August, 2020 whereby services of petitioner along with others have been regularized with immediate effect. 16. Aforesaid Office Order dated 29 th August, 2020, placed on record by the respondents/State, during hearing, indicates that services of petitioner were regularized as TGT on or after 29 th August, 2020 in pursuance and compliance to Government instructions contained in letter dated 5.8.2020, after verification made by Principals/Head Masters as well as from the Deputy Directors of Elementary Education concerned and recommendations of the scrutiny committee constituted at Directorate level. It means that petitioner was engaged as a TGT on contract at least 3 years prior to 29 th August, 2020 but during pendency of present petition. 17. It means that petitioner was engaged as a TGT on contract at least 3 years prior to 29 th August, 2020 but during pendency of present petition. 17. Neither petitioner nor State has placed on record any document or information indicating the date of appointment/acceptance of joining of petitioner on contract basis but it is apparent that till 2018, petitioner was not engaged on contract basis as petitioner has approached the Court (Erstwhile Tribunal) in November, 2018 seeking direction to the respondents/State to appoint him on contract basis being an eligible PTA-TGT (Medical) for such appointment. Had petitioner not been engaged as a TGT on contract during pendency of present petition, there was no question of his regularization vide Office Order dated 29 th August, 2020. Therefore, prayer of petitioner seeking direction to respondents to execute agreement for his appointment on contract basis and to permit him to join his duty as TGT (Medical) on contract basis in GSSS Jhagtan, District Shimla has become redundant after his re-engagement/engagement on contract. 18. However, from material placed on record, it is apparent that petitioner was entitled for taking over his services on contract basis in furtherance to Office Order dated 3 rd January, 2015 (Annexure A-2) and petitioner deserves to be considered in service with respondents on contract basis since 05 th January 2015 i.e. from 05.01.2015 when petitioner approached respondent No.4 and thus, as also was directed by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in Sunil Kumar’ case referred supra, petitioner is entitled for release of entire arrears due towards him w.e.f. 5.1.2015 with all consequential benefits including salary at fixed rate of Rs.13,900/- per month till accepting his joining by taking over his service on contract basis during pendency of petition before his regularization. 19. Petitioner has placed on record communication dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure A-7) issued by the Department of Personnel (AP- III) whereby in continuation of earlier letter dated 04.05.2017, it was communicated that Government had decided to regularize services of contractual appointees who had completed three years continuous service as on 31.03.2018 and, also regularized such contract appointees after 30.09.2018 who had due to complete three years of continuous service as on 30.09.2018, by observing all codal formalities, subject to terms and conditions contained in the letter. 20. 20. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner was not entitled for taking over his services on contract basis on 05.01.2015 and, further that, he was not fulfilling the terms and conditions for his regularization after completion of three years in January, 2018 after such appointment on contract in January, 2015. Therefore, had petitioner been engaged on contract basis w.e.f. 05.01.2015, he would have completed three years on 05.01.2018 and, thus, would have been entitled for regularization in pursuance to communication dated 11.05.2018 for regularization, for completion of three years continuous service on contract as on 31.03.2018 in furtherance to communication dated 11.05.2018, i.e. at the most from May/June 2018. 21. Though petitioner has not been prayed specifically for direction to regularize his services on contract after taking over the same on contract, but in the given facts and circumstances, this relief is consequential and related to relief prayed in present petition, wherein alongwith other reliefs, petitioner has also prayed for any other relief which is deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Relegating petitioner to enter into one more round of litigation for such relief which is natural consequences of taking over of his services on contract w.e.f. 15.01.2015 would not only cause multiplicity of litigation, but shall also hamper cause of justice and would be contrary to State Litigation Policy. 22. As recorded supra, there is nothing on record to disentitle or deprive the petitioner from engaging on contract basis w.e.f. 05.01.2015 and confer status of regular employee after completion of three years service on 31.03.2018 w.e.f. May/June 2018. Therefore, petitioner is also entitled for his regularization in pursuance to communication dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure A-7) at least w.e.f. 01.07.2018 even if time after 11.07.2018 till 01.07.2018 is considered to be exhausted in completing all codal formalities and, thus, petitioner is entitled for benefit of regular service w.e.f. 01.07.2018 with all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits. 23. Eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner for regularization after completion of three years of contract service is also evident from the documents placed on record by the respondent-State during course of hearing, i.e. instructions dated 08.05.2024 and Office Order dated 29.08.2020 whereby it has been informed that after taking over services of petitioner on contract, he has been regularized with immediate effect after issuance of Office Order dated 29.08.2020. 24. 24. There is allegation in petition that respondent No.4 did not accept joining/taking over service of petitioner on contract basis despite issuance of Office Order dated 3 rd January, 2015 and fulfilling all terms and conditions including producing the agreement/contract duly signed by petitioner and medical certificate duly issued by competent authority. 25. Respondent No.4 despite service has not chosen to contest the case nor other respondents have filed reply for rebutting the claim/allegation of petitioner. Therefore, the plea against respondent No.4, which is not disputed by filing reply, or otherwise, has to be considered to have been admitted as correct and therefore, there is no need for producing further evidence to prove the same. 26. Though respondent No.5 has been made as a party in person, however, there is no allegation in petition against him even in general much less specific. Therefore, prayer to issue direction for causing loss to petitioner by respondent No.5 is not sustainable. 27. The respondents/State as well as respondent No.4 have not rebutted the pleadings of petitioner alleging the act of respondent No.4 depriving the petitioner from benefit of contractual services and inaction on the part of respondents No.1 to 3. Therefore, respondent No.4 is also liable to pay cost to petitioner for his illegal omission/commission on his part for illegally harassing the petitioner and forcing him to file petition for redressal of his grievances. As respondent No.4 has now retired therefore no disciplinary proceedings are being directed to be initiated against him 28. In view of above discussion, respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to ensure payment of amount due to petitioner as contract teacher w.e.f. 05 th January, 2015 at the rate of Rs.13,900/- per month till acceptance of his joining/taking over of his services on contract basis. 29. Respondent/State/Department is also directed to confer status of regular service upon the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2018 with all consequential benefits on or before 30.06.2025 in all respects. 30. Due payment be made to petitioner on or before 30 th June, 2025 failing which respondents/State shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount from due date, and in such eventuality, the interest after payment to the petitioner, shall be recovered from the Officers/officials responsible for delay in payment of amount due. 31. 31. Respondent No.4 is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner by way of compensation and the said amount firstly shall be paid by respondents No.1 to 3 along with amount due and thereafter, shall be recovered from respondent No.4 in accordance with law for depositing the same in the Treasury. Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.