Allowed

Pushpender Thakur v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 May 2017CWP/2310/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two identical writ petitions concerning PTA teachers whose appointments were illegally cancelled. The Court directed that the suspension period be counted for seniority and ordered the release of grant-in-aid for Staff Training and Deployment, while also considering them for contract-based regularization.

What did the court decide?

Seniority period counted for 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 for Saroj Devi and 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009 for Pushpender Thakur; grant-in-aid released; consideration for contract appointment.

Pushpender Thakur Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP Nos. 2309 and 2310 of 2016 Date of decision: May 04, 2017.

¶3

1. CWP No. 2309	of 2016
Saroj Devi.		…...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of H.P. & anr.		……Respondents.
2. CWP No. 2310	of 2016
Pushpender Thakur		…...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of H.P. & anr.		……Respondents.

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶6

For the petitioner(s)	:	Ms. Jyotsna R. Advocate with Ms. Advocate.	Dua, Senior Charu Bhatnagar,
For the respondents	:	Mr. Pramod Thaku Advocate General.	r, Additional

¶7

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶8

This judgment shall dispose of both writ petitions involving similar facts and points in issue.

¶9

The relief sought in these writ petitions common in nature is qua issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

¶11

¶12

to count the period towards petitioners’ seniority which in this writ petition is from 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 whereas in the connected one from 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009 when they both were prevented to discharge their duties on account of cancellation of their appointment on PTA basis consequent upon a complaint made to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh vide Annexure P-4 in both writ petitions. A direction has also been sought to be issued to the respondents to release grant-in-aid to the petitioners in these writ petitions for the period 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 and 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009 when they remained out of job on account of cancellation of their appointments which ultimately was held illegal in appeal they preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmour. A direction has also been sought to be issued to the respondents to regularize/take on contract basis the service of the petitioners as PTA teachers at par those PTA teachers who on the completion of seven years of service have been appointed on contract basis with all consequential benefits.

¶13

Since the respondents have failed to file reply to these writ petitions, therefore, on the previous date the following order came to be passed:

¶14

“Despite opportunities afforded, response not filed. Be positively filed within a period of four weeks, failing which it shall be presumed that response is not required to be filed and petition shall be heard on

¶15

¶16

the basis of material available on record. Rejoinder, if any, be also filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶17

List on 24.04.2017 before the Deputy/Additional Registrar (Judicial), before whom, learned counsel for the parties undertake to appear/cause appearance for compliance of the order. Thereafter, matter be listed before the Court on 04.05.2017.”

¶18

Irrespective of the order ibid the respondents have failed to file their response to the averments in these writ petitions. The period w.e.f. 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 in the case of the petitioner in this writ petition whereas w.e.f. 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009 in the case of the petitioner Pushpender Thakur in the connected writ petition has to be counted for the purpose of seniority because they both were prevented by order Annexure P-4 from discharging their duties which ultimately was quashed and set aside by the Appellate Authority vide judgment Annexure P-9 in this petition. In the connected writ petition though the order passed by the Appellate Authority has not been placed on record, however, the same is dated 12.8.2008. Therefore, the petitioner in this cases had resumed her duty again on 26.8.2009 vide joining report Annexure P-7 whereas in the connected petition on 27.6.2009 vide joining report Annexure P-7. Being so, the period from 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 in the case of the petitioner in this writ petition and from 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009

¶19

¶20

in the case of the petitioner in connected writ petition should be counted for the purpose of determination of their seniority. This point is covered in their favour by a division Bench judgment dated 1.5.2012 of this Court in CWP No. 188 of 2012, titled Chatter Singh versus State of H.P. and others. This judgment has even been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Shri Balak Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2015 (i) Shim. LC 505 and a Single Bench in Hem Chand versus State of H.P. & others, 2014(3) Him. L.R. 1962.

¶21

The respondents are also under an obligation to release grant-in-aid in the case of the petitioner in this writ petition for the period from 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 whereas in the case of the petitioner in connected petition w.e.f. 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009 when they both remained out of service on account of their removal from service which ultimately was held to be illegal by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour district at Nahan vide order Annexure P-9 in this petition. There exists policy Annexure P-10 (colly) framed by the respondents-State which provides for taking over the services of the PTA (GIA Rules 2006) on contract basis. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for being appointed on contract basis if otherwise fulfill the criteria prescribed under the policy.

¶22

In view of what has been said hereinabove, I allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to regularize

¶23

¶24

the period from 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 in the case of Saroj Devi the petitioner in this petition and from 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009 in the case of Pushpender Thakur, the petitioner in connected writ petition notionally i.e. for the purpose of seniority. The respondents shall also release the grant-in-aid in the case of the petitioner in this petition for the period w.e.f. 10.10.2008 to 26.8.2009 whereas in that of the petitioner in the connected petition from 10.10.2008 to 27.6.2009 within two weeks from today. The petitioners in these petitions be also considered for the purpose of their appointments on contract basis, if otherwise eligible in terms of the policy Annexure P-10 colly.

¶25

Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed and stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶26

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge. May 04, 2017, (vs)

Pushpender Thakur v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpender Thakur v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhdeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Khyalu Ram Vs Mangla Nand

Ram Kali Vs Soma Devi

Ajay Kumar Vs The Director National Institute of Open Schooling

Sanjay Kumar Vs Vineet Kumar

Balinder Singh Vs State of Hp