Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kiran Bala vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 9 November, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7788 of 2022
Between:-
1. KIRAN BALA ,
W/O SH. DEEPAK AWASTHI, AGE
ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VPO
LOWER LAMBAGAON, TEH.
JAISINGHPUR, DISTT KANGRA,
(H.P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AS
LECTURE HISTORY (SN) AT GSSS
TAMBER, DISTT KANGRA H.P.
2. SEEMA KUMARI,
D/O SH. KESHARI LAL, AGE ABOUT
46 YEARS, R/O VPO ALAMPUR,
TEH. JAISINGHPUR, DISTT
KANGRA (H.P) PRESENTLY
POSTED AS LECTURE
GEOGRAPHY (SN) AT GSSS
TAMBER DISTT. KANGRA H.P.
3. VINOD AWASTHI,
S/O SH. YOGINDER AWASTHI, AGE
ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O VPO
NADAUN TEH. NADUAN, WARD NO.
05, DISTT HAMIRPUR (H.P)
PRESENTLY POSTED AS
LECTURER GEOGRAPHY (SN) AT
GGSSS NADUAN DISTT. HAMIRPUR
H.P.
4. REENA KUMARI,
W/O SH. INDERJEET SINGH, AGE
ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS
2
BRALOO P.O JHAMOON TEH.
JAISINGHPUR, DISTT. KANGRA
(H.P.) PRESENTLY POSTED AS OT
AT GSSS TAMBER, DISTT.
.
KANGRA. H.P.
......PETITIONERS
(BY MS VANDANA THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171002.
2. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171001.
3. THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
HIMACHAL KANGRA, DISTRICT PRADESH,
SHIMLA-171001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY,
KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
...... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. GAURAV SHARMA, DEPUTY,
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
_________________________________________________
This Petition is coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s): -
"1) That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the respondents may be directed to regularize ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 3 the service of the petitioners on the completion of three years contractual services i.e. 1.04.2018.
2) That the respondent may be directed and petitioners may .
be awarded with seniority and all consequential benefits etc.
3) That the service of petitioners may kindly be ordered to be considered from the date of their initial employment i.e. 2006 for all purpose and benefits i.e. pension and gratuity and other benefits."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed on PTA basis in the year 2006- 2007. Thereafter, vide Policy decision dated 16th August, 2013, the State of Himachal Pradesh has decided to bring the services of the petitioners on contract basis, w.e.f. January, 2015. The petitioners were entitled for regularization of their services on completion of three years contractual service as per regularization policy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioners is duly covered by the decision given by this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, titled Yashwant Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, alongwith connected matters, decided on 31.8.2022.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General has not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 45. Operative part of the decision dated 31.8.2022, passed in CWP No.342 of 2021, reads as under:-
"19. With due deference to the judgments relied upon .
by the respondents, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down therein will not serve the cause of respondents for the reason firstly that, as held above, it was not a case of fixation of cut-off date for the entire class, secondly that the above referred judgments were passed in their own facts and lastly the only caveat generated is that the court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut-off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary or the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result or it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical. We have no hesitation to hold that in the facts of instant case the impugned action of respondents is blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. In R L. Marwaha v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 31, it has been held that fixing of a date for grant of benefit, must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The respondents, as noticed above, at one stage had themselves supported the cause of petitioners for granting them permanency of job on the premise of financial compulsions faced by it. They preferred contract employments or employments under special policies at initial stage than the recruitments on regular basis for the same reason of financial constraints. Once the courts upheld the contentions of ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 5 respondents, they cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of petitioners by creating fictional separate class of employees. Noticeably, the respondents have not .
declared any object for creating such imaginary classification and hence it is difficult nay impossible to find necessary nexus between the intelligible differentia and the object sought to be achieved.
20. It is also not a case where the respondents have not come out with reasons in support of its actions and financial constraint is not one of the mentioned reasons. Other reasons have already been held by us to be not qualifying the benchmark of reasonable classification and hence have been adjudged to be discriminatory and arbitrary.
21. Lastly another futile attempt has been made on behalf of respondents by contending that some of the PTA-GIA teachers were taken on contract and some were left out, therefore, they being homogeneous class cannot be differentiated. According to respondents the grant of claimed benefit of regularisation to petitioners will discriminate the PTA-GIA teachers whose services were not taken on contract. Again, we do not find any reason to subscribe to the view expounded by respondents. Petitioners are seeking the parity with other contract employees of the State Government on the premise of having formed the same class with them, whereas the rights, if any, of those who have not yet been taken on contract is not the subject matter of these petitions. Petitioners were taken on contract ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 6 when they qualified the criteria of having served as PTA-GIA teachers for seven years. Petitioners cannot be compared with those who had not fulfilled the .
requisite criteria or were not taken on contract for any other reason.
22. In view of above discussion, the petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners w.e.f. the due date i.e. 1.4.2018. Needless to say that the consequential benefits shall follow. The petitions are accordingly disposed of so also the miscellaneous pending applications(s), if any."
6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of the decision given by this Court in Yashwant Singh's case (supra).
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( Sabina ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja) Judge November 9, 2022 (Ravinder) ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS