Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sukhinder Baidwan & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 9 March, 2022
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Sukhinder Baidwan & others versus State of H.P. & others .
alongwith connected matters CWP No. 2080 of 2019 a/w CWPs No. 38, 220, 530, 4944 of 2020, 3061, 6621 of 2021 09.03.2022 Present: CWP No. 2080 of 2019 Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5/State.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 8 to 17.
CWP No. 38 of 2020 Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
CWP No. 220 of 2020Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5/State.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
CWP No. 530 of 2020Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2/State.
Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
CWP No. 4944 of 2020Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2022 20:12:52 :::CIS.
: 2 : CWP No. 3061 of 2021 Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5/State.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 7.
CWP No. 6621 of 2021Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents/State.
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Even though the learned counsel for the parties pray for urgency on the ground that promotion is being claimed against the posts which are occupied by the contractual appointees and the matters were heard at some length, but, in the course of arguments, the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4423 of 2020, titled as Aakash Srivastava versus State of H.P. & others, and six other connected writ petitions, was cited.
2. The issue that is involved in the present matter is the same which was examined and decided by the coordinate ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2022 20:12:52 :::CIS .
: 3 : Bench of this Court in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners in those cases were also appointed on contract basis.
The coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment directed their regularization keeping in view regularization policy of the State Government contained in various notifications/circulars.
3. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has produced before the Court a copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18635 of 2021, titled Hanish Rana & ors. versus Aakash Srivastava & ors. alongwith other connected SLPs including those filed by the State Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP has passed an order on 27 th August, 2021, in the terms that there shall be stay to the extent of direction given by the High Court with regard to regularization.
4. Even though the learned counsels appearing for the private respondents sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment by contending that the same pertains to tenure based Senior Residents and Junior Residents, but, considering that the petitioners in that case were also appointed on contract basis and the policy which has been relied upon is the same and the interpretation of the policy is the question which is being debated for and against by the learned counsels appearing on ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2022 20:12:52 :::CIS .
: 4 : the either side, the propriety demands that this Court should await the outcome of the aforesaid SLP.
5. List on 12th April, 2022.
r to ( Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
March 09, 2022
( rajni )
::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2022 20:12:52 :::CIS