Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Aruna Kumari Daughter vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 1 July, 2022

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2022 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.591 of 2019 Between:

ARUNA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SH. GIAN r CHAND, RESIDENT OF VPO SAMOT, TEHSIL BATIYAT, DISTT. CHAMBA, H.P. ....PETITIONER.

(BY. MR. KULBHUSHAN KHAJURIA, ADVOCATE ) AND

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.

2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SHIMLA­ 171001.

....RESPONDENTS.

(BY. MR. SUMESH RAJ, MR. SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, WITH AMIT KUMAR DHUMAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL) Whether approved for reporting?1 No 1 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2022 20:02:09 :::CIS 2 .

This petition coming on for order stage this day, the Court passed the following: JUDGMENT Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a lecturer in the subject of Political Science, in Government Senior Secondary School Raipur, District Chamba, H.P., on contract basis, on 27.07.1998. Her services were regularized against the said post w.e.f. 12.01.2009.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that persons similarly situated as her, i.e. lecturer appointed on contract basis, stand regularized by the State in terms of the policy formulated by it immediately post completion of eight years of service on contract basis, whereas services of the petitioner stand regularized after completion of ten years. This act of the respondents as per the petitioner is arbitrary as similarly situated persons have been treated with a different yardstick. Though, there are other reliefs also which have been prayed for by the petitioner in these proceedings, however, learned counsel has restricted the claim of the petitioner to the said relief only, i.e. issuance of a mandamus to the respondent to order regularization of the services of the petitioner after completion of eight years of service.

.

3. The Court stands informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is no more res integra, as Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1853 of 2009­D, titled as Arpana Bali Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 10.04.2013, petitioner where was similarly situated as the petitioner, has issued direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the Ms. Arpana Bali on notional basis after completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 01.01.2007, with further direction that due and admissible monetary benefits be restricted from the date when she actually joined pursuant to the subsequent order of regularization passed in her favour. A copy of the judgment so passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in CWP No.1853 of 2009­D, titled as Arpana Bali Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 10.04.2013 has been made available to the Court, perusal whereof demonstrates that therein also the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis as a Lecturer of Music and thereafter, her services were regularized after a period of ten years which stood assailed by her by way of said petition. Her Writ Petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the following terms:­ "18. The upshot of the above discussion would be that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized as Lecturer Music (Vocal) w.e.f. 1.1.2007 instead of 31.12.2008, however, only on notional basis from the said date and ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2022 20:02:09 :::CIS 4 .

entitled to the actual financial benefits from the date she has joined as Lecturer Music (Vocal) on regular basis pursuant to impugned order Annexure P­13. The impugned order is hereby ordered to be modified, accordingly.

19. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to order the regularization of the petitioner on notional basis 2.3.f. 1.1.2007, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. However, the due and admissible monitory benefits be restricted from the date of she had joined duties pursuant to the office order dated 2.3.2009, Annexure P­13."

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that there is in fact no difference between the case of Ms. Arpana Bali's (supra) and in the case of the present petitioner.

5. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the service of the petitioner be regularized on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.2007, on or before 31.08.2022. Due and admissible monitory benefits are restricted as from 01.01.2009.

6. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 01, 2022 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2022 20:02:09 :::CIS