Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Inderjeet Mohan Tandon vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 9 October, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 741 of 2019
Decided on: 9.10.2020
.
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Inderjeet Mohan Tandon ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ..........Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, through
Video Conferencing.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
with Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr.
Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocates
General.
__________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:
"1. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned notification dated 25.1.2006 and order dated 9.7.2009 of the respondent No. 2, as illegal, null and void and inoperative qua the petitioner being against all Cannons of Law and Principles of Natural Justice.
2. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitoenr from the date of his joining service i.e. 23.1.1999 and the petitioner be held entitled to all consequential service benefits of pay, seniority, increments, pension, Provident Fund etc. et and further the petitioner be allowed to continue depositing his subscription towards the General Provident Fund ."1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:18:07 :::HCHP 22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner was .
appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Office on contract basis on 23.11.1999 and thereafter, services of the petitioner were regularized with the Department on 25.11.2006. It is also not in dispute that petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on 23.1.1999 continued to serve the department uninterruptedly without there being any break till his regularization.
3. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner is that services rendered by him w.e.f. 23.1.1999 as Ayurvedic Medical Officer on ad hoc basis till his regularization on 25.11.2006 are required to be taken into consideration by the department while computing qualifying service for the purpose of consequential benefits i.e. pensionary benefits and annual increment etc.
4. Parties are ad-idem that aforesaid question has been elaborately dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.12.2019,titled Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of HP and Ors in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019 (further followed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.1.2020 in CWP No. 3267 of 2019 titled Ram Krishan Sharma v. The Accountant General (A&E) HP and Ors), wherein it has been concluded that services rendered even prior to regularization in any capacity be it work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-
::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:18:07 :::HCHP 3pensionable establishment have to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment .
in a pensionable establishment.
5. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has already held that no discrimination can be made qua the employees, who rendered services prior to regularization in the capacity of contractual employees and were regularized only because they had put in the requisite number of years of service on contractual basis like their counterparts who had rendered services in the capacity of work charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment, of course, for that matter even on ad-hoc basis.
6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment 14.9.2010 dated passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008 titled Narender Singh Naik v. State of HP and Ors (further upheld by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 271 of 2011), wherein respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for counting the period he has worked on contract basis till regularization with all consequential benefits in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (1990) 2 SCC 715.
::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:18:07 :::HCHP 47. Since question needs to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings has been elaborately dealt with and decided by the Division .
Bench of this court in Smt. Sheela Devi's Case supra and Narender Singh Naik's case, this Court sees no reason to go into this question again, especially when all the facts and relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition are identical to that of aforesaid case.
8. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed making the judgment passed Smt. Sheela Devi's Case and Narender Singh Naik's case supra mutatis mutandi applicable, also to the present petition. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
October 9, 2020 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:18:07 :::HCHP