Himachal Pradesh High Court
Oma Wati And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 21 August, 2023
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.5507 of 2020
Date of Decision : 21.08.2023
.
Oma Wati and another
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
......Respondents
of
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Amar
Dev Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate
General the State.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to the extent of benefits of contract service of petitioner No.1 Oma Wati and husband of petitioner No.2 Veena Devi (Suresh Kumar) for the purpose of increments and pensionary benefits.
2. Petitioner No.1 Oma Wati was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Junior Basis Teacher (JBT) on 24.7.1998 and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 2served as such till 24.8.2000. Thereafter, she was appointed as Shastri on regular basis and she is serving as such since 25.8.2000.
3. It is an admitted fact that petitioner No.1 had served on contract .
basis in the same Department, but on different post, i.e. JBT and she has been appointed on regular basis as Shastri, but not as JBT. Thus, her case is not a matter of contract appointment followed by regular appointment on the same post.
of
4. Husband of petitioner No.2 was also appointed as a Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) on 6.12.1999 on contract basis and he was regularized rt on the same post on 7.8.2012, without interruption following to his contract appointment.
5. Though in the reply, claims of the petitioners have been contested by the respondents by taking various grounds, but all these grounds have been dealt with in the pronouncements of this Court in CWPOA No.2411 of 2019, titled Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 10.1.2020 alongwith connected matters; and in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 26.12.2019.
6. It is informed that SLP(C) No. 8012-8013 of 2021 preferred by respondents-State against aforesaid judgment stands dismissed on 7.8.2023 by the Supreme Court alongwith SLP(C) No. 10399 of 2020, titled State of H.P. Vs. Sheela Devi. Therefore, aforesaid judgment in CWP No. 2411 of 2019 has attained finality.
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 37. So far as the claim of petitioner No.1 is concerned, that is slightly different than the claim of petitioner No.2, but identical issue has been decided on 7.12.2011 by Division Bench of this Court in CWP .
No.10529 of 2011, titled Youdhishther Kumar Sharma vs. The State of H.P. and another, wherein it has been held that where an employee has served on contract basis on different posts and has been regularized on some other post, his ad-hoc/tenure period shall be of counted only for the purpose of pension. Whereas, an employee, appointed on contract basis, is appointed on regular basis on the same rt post, without interruption, his contract service has to be counted for the purpose of annual increment as well as pensionary benefits.
8. Despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases that State must behave like a Model Employer, State, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard, successively keeps on to formulate, adopt and practise exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate rights of the employees for which they are otherwise entitled. On intervention of the Courts directing the State to extend such benefits like pay scale, increment, leave and counting of service etc., State every time tries to deprive the employee from such benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue with practice of temporary/ad-hoc appointments. Appointment of Voluntary Teachers, ad-hoc Teachers, Vidya Upasaks, Contract Teachers, PARA Teachers, PAT, PTA and ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 4 SMC Teachers are examples of clever phraseology devised by State to overcome directions of the Courts in order to avoid permanent appointments by appointing ad-hoc/Temporary Teachers depriving .
them of service benefits available to regular employees. When Courts upheld the entitlement of ad-hoc employees for service benefits, State came with Scheme for appointment of Voluntary Teachers. Again, on intervention of the Court, State continued changing the name of Policy of but for appointment on exploitative terms. Therefore, we are of the opinion that all these terms are similar temporary appointments rt irrespective of their nomenclature. Therefore, verdict of the Court regarding extension of service benefits with respect to one kind of temporary appointment is equally applicable to similar temporary appointment with different nomenclature.
9. The claims of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgments in Sheela Devi, Jagdish Chand as well as Youdhishther Kumar Sharma, referred supra. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the present cases also, subject to clarification that petitioner No.1 shall be entitled for counting of contract service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits, whereas, benefits to the husband of petitioner No.2 shall be extended by counting his contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits.
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS 510. Present petition was filed on 30.10.2018. The actual consequential financial benefits shall, however be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. Due and admissible benefits be .
released to the petitioners within a period of three months from today.
11. Needless to say that the benefits beyond three years prior to filing of the writ petition shall be extended to them on notional basis.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands of disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
rt ( Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
( Bipin Chander Negi)
August 21, 2023 (KS) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2023 20:32:24 :::CIS