Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dalbir Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 5 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.3127 of 2021
Decided on: 05th January, 2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Dalbir Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ....Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner
rt : Mr. Pawanish Kr. Shukla and
Mr. Abhay Kaushal, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
CMP No.239 of 2024
Heard. Allowed. Application stands disposed of.
CWP No.3127 of 20212. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -2-
3. The petitioner, being TGT, has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):-
"(i) That your lordships may graciously be pleased .
to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue fresh appointment letter to the petitioners to issue fresh appointment letter to the petitioners as per his post on regular basis from the initial appointment i.e. 11/06/2009 with all of consequential benefits in view of passed judgment in LPA No.21/2013 along with rt connected matter in the interest of Justice."
4. In the background of the reliefs prayed for above, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondents had started the selection process for appointment as TGT in the year 2008 on Batch wise Basis, on regular basis, in the Elementary Education Department, of the State Government in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Education Department, Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973 but, instead of appointing him on regular basis as TGT he was appointed on contractual basis on 11.06.2009. The petitioner continues as such and he was regularized as ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -3- TGT (Arts) in June, 2015.
5. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that though as per the Himachal Pradesh, Education .
Department Class-III [School and Inspection Cadre] Service Rules, 1973, the petitioner had undergone the selection for appointment as TGT on regular basis but, was wrongly and illegally appointed on contract basis of when, contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment was introduced in the Himachal Pradesh Elementary rt Education Department, Trained Graduate Teachers [Class-III] [Non Gazetted], Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 22.10.2009 and once these Rules of 2009 were only prospective in nature then, the petitioner could not have been appointed on contract basis, meaning thereby, that the petitioner had a right to be appointed on regular basis from the date of initial appointment.
In this background, the action of the respondents in denying the "deemed regular appointment to the petitioner, as TGT" from the date he was appointed ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -4- as such on contract basis in the year 2008 and 2009 [prior to insertion of contractual mode-nomenclature of appointment in Rules on 22.10.2009]; has resulted in .
depriving the petitioner of the regular status, regular pay scale, pay fixation in regular pay scale, benefit of ACP from such deemed regular date, higher pay in revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, then w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and of higher pay till day which is a recurring loss till day. Even this action has resulted in depriving the petitioner of the rt pension on superannuation which is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. The question, as to whether the incumbents who had undergone selection for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers or for the post of Lecturers (School Cadre) under the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III, (School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules 1973 for regular posts, in the regular pay scales, could be appointed on contractual basis in the years 2008 and 2009 when, the contractual mode-
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -5-nomenclature of appointment was introduced by issuing the Amended Rules on 22.10.2009 [in case of Trained Graduate Teachers] and on 22.09.2010 [in case of .
Lecturers School Cadre], and once the amended rules cannot be applied retrospectively to selection undertaken under the amended Rules but were to apply prospectively only; stands adjudicated/answered this Court; in of CWP No.7602 of 2010, titled as Om Parkash vs State of Himachal Pradesh along with connected matters, rt decided on 02.05.2012 and in CWP No.3143 of 2011, titled as Manju Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 07.11.2012, and CWP No. 3144 of 2011, titled as Anju Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 08.10.2012; and the judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court have also been affirmed in LPA No. 54 of 2013 along with other connected LPA's titled as State of H.P. and others vs. Om Prakash, decided on 04.10.2019, Annexure P-5 whereby, the Division Bench of ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -6- this Court has recorded its findings as under:-
4. Observations:
4(i) It is not in dispute that even though the State Government on 12.12.2003 had .
requested all the Heads of Departments to amend Clause-10 of R&P Rules, for including contractual appointment as one of the mode of recruitment in accordance with the decision taken by the State, yet, Recruitment & of Promotion Rules for lecturers (school cadre) were not amended in tune with 12.12.2003 decision of the State Government. The mode of rt recruitment Promotion under Rules for the Recruitment appointment lecture & (School cadre) continued to be only on regular basis. It was only on 20.9.2010, that Clause10 of the R&P Rules for the posts in question was amended and notified, incorporating contractual appointments, as one of the mode of recruitment.
4(ii) The college in question was taken over by the State on 6.2.2007. In terms of notification dated 25.8.1994, services of the eligible staff were also required to be taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007. State though had taken over the services of the staff of the Kanwar Durga Chand Memorial College, Jaisinghpur only on 21.6.2010. Fact remains that services of writ petitioners were taken over prior to ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -7- amendment of R&P Rules.
The services of the petitioners were required to be taken over in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which were in existence on .
the date of taking over the college i.e. 6.2.2007.
The R&P Rules as they existed on 6.2.2007 did not provide for contractual appointments. The Rules only provided for regular recruitments. Service of petitioners were taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007. College itself was taken over on of 6.2.2007. Therefore, clause providing appointment on contractual basis inserted in the R&P Rules by way of amendment of Rules rt on 20.09.2010, could not be retrospectively applied to the petitioners.
It is apt to refer the judgment passed by this Court, in CWP No.1811 of 2008, titled Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P & others, relevant segment reproduced hereinafter:-
"25......................Government appointments are made in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
When such Rules are framed the Government is expected to act and make appointments in accordance with the Rules. If the Rules do not permit the Government to make appointment on contract basis they must be made on regular basis.
4(iii) The notification dated 25.8.1994, under which State Government took over the ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -8- privately managed colleges as well as services of staff working there, provides for granting them Government scales as admissible to their respective corresponding categories. Clause-9 .
of this notification reads as under:-
"9. Provided that services of only those employees will be taken over who furnish a written acceptance on non-judicial paper duly attested by the competent authority to the effect that they are willing to be absorbed in of Government services on the terms and conditions laid down in these rules."
rtThere is no provision in the above notification for taking over services of staff of privately managed colleges on contract basis, more so, in the facts of instant case, in view of Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Lecturer (School cadre) as they existed on 6.2.2007 i.e. the date of take over, whereunder no provision for appointment on contract basis was there, regular recruitment was the only prescribed mode.
5. Thus, services of the petitioners' were thus required to be taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007 on regular basis. There is no infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. All these appeals are therefore dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any."
7. Learned counsel further submit that based ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS -9- on the judgment in case of Om Prakash [CWP No. 7600 of 2010, affirmed in LPA No.54 of 2013 on 04.10.2019] and other connected LPAs, Annexure P-5 (supra), and the .
principle of law, answered therein, the benefit of deemed regular appointment as Shastri Teachers [in C&V Cadre of Shastri-Language teachers etc.] has been granted to similar incumbents, from the date of their initial of appointment on contract basis w.e.f. 30.01.2009; even during the pendency of COPCT No.1125 of 2020 in rt case, titled as Tej Ram versus Rajeev Sharma and Execution Petition No.327 of 2020 in case titled as Rakhi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., and in compliance thereof the respondents have issued communication on 26.09.2020 and on 29.08.2020.
Even a perusal of the orders in Execution Petition No.129 of 2023, titled as Rakhi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., decided on 01.11.2023, whereby the similarly placed Language Teacher [of C&V Cadre in Mandi District] has been treated as regular ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS
- 10 -
Language Teacher w.e.f. 30.01.2009 i.e. the date of her initial contractual appointment in regular-applicable pay scale, with pay fixation, ACP and Pension.
.
8. By applying the above principle of law in LPA No.21 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. versus Ravinder Kumar, decided on 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-5) the benefit of deemed regular appointment from the date of of initial contractual appointment has been given to the Lecturers (School Cadre).
rt
9. Moreover, by applying the same principle of law, CWP No.3144 of 2011, upheld in LPA No. 4059 of 213, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. versus Anju Devi and on the basis of CWP No.7602 of 2010, affirmed in LPA No.54 of 2013 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. versus Om Prakash, decided on 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-5), the benefit of deemed regular appointment was granted to Trained Graduate Teachers from the date of initial contractual appointment.
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS- 11 -
10. Case records reveal that once this Hon'ble Court has adjudicated upon a principle of law mandating that once the selection process in accordance with the .
existing Recruitment & Promotion Rules of 1973 only provided for regular appointment in regular pay, then the respondents cannot give have given appointment to incumbents on contractual basis, in fixed emoluments;
of by acting de hors the Recruitment & Promotion Rules existing at the relevant time and when, the contractual rt mode of recruitment/ appointment was incorporated in the Rules, much after the incumbents-petitioners had joined; and once the amendment in Rules introducing contractual mode of appointment(s) could not apply retrospectively to the disadvantage and prejudice of the incumbents so as to curtail their rights which had accrued under the Rules of 1973, under which then selection-recruitment process was initiated.
11. In this view of the matter, the Government-
Respondents have issued an order on 01.12.2023, to ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS
- 12 -
implement the judgment and to give deemed regular appointments [to the appellants-petitioners therein as Shastri Teachers-Language Teachers; as Trained .
Graduate Teacher (Arts-Medical/Non-Medical); and as Lecturers (School Cadre) in the applicable regular pay scale, with pay fixation and other benefits from the date they were initially appointed on contract basis; then, of once the petitioner is similarly placed, therefore, he is entitled to deemed regular appointment as TGT w.e.f.
rt 11.06.2009 i.e. the date from which he was initially appointed on contract basis, with pay fixation, ACP, service benefits in regular pay scale w.e.f. 11.06.2009 with all benefits; but the denial of regular status, regular pay scale, pay fixation in regular scale w.e.f. 11.06.2009 and then in the applicable revised regular pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.2016 till day; is a recurring loss till day; and the action of the respondents amounts to treating 'petitioners-equals as unequal' is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS- 13 -
12. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General submits that so far as the mandate of this Court in case of Om Prakash, Anju .
Devi, Manju Devi, Ravinder Kumar [relating to TGTs and Lecturers (School Cadre) as mentioned in Paras 6, 9 & 11] and the directions/orders passed in case of Tej Ram and Rakhi [relating to Shastri and Language of Teachers as mentioned in Para 9] supra and the implementation order dated 01.12.2023, is not in dispute rt but, the factual aspects needs to be looked into and verified.
13. In these circumstances, and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make representation to the Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in continuation of earlier representation dated 22.01.2021 (Annexure P-3), within three weeks; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to verify the facts ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS
- 14 -
and, in case, the petitioner is similarly placed then, to consider/examine the case of the petitioner for extending similar benefit of regular appointment from the date the .
petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as TGT in the light of above referred judgments, within six weeks thereafter.
14. Upon consideration, in case, the respondents of decide to extend the benefit of deemed regular appointment to the petitioner, as Trained Graduate rt Teachers, from the date of initial appointment on contractual basis, then, the respondents shall grant the consequential benefits notionally. However, it is clarified that the respondents shall give the eligible monetary benefits, admissible to the petitioner in accordance with law.
15. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all questions of facts and law are left open.
In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS
- 15 -
as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.
.
(Ranjan Sharma)
January 05, 2024 Judge
(Shivender)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:36:29 :::CIS