Dismissed

Jitender Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Nov 2023CWP/8473/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted the petitioners to file a representation to the Principal Secretary (Education) to regularize their services w.e.f. 1.4.2018, directing the Authority to decide without discrimination within six weeks by 8.1.2024, while expressly reserving the question of facts and law.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file representation; direction to Authority to decide within 6 weeks by 8.1.2024; disposal of Writ Petition.

Jitender Kumar and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8473 of 2023 Decided on: 04.11.2023

¶2

Jitender Kumar & Ors

¶3

……..Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors …….Resppondents Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE

¶6

…….Resppondents

¶7

WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING? yes

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate.

¶9

For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶10

Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

¶11

The petitioners, who are five in number,

¶12

have come up before this Court, seeking the following

¶13

reliefs:-

¶14

“i) That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the petitioners on the completion of their three years contractual service w.e.f.1.4.2018, in terms of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the batch of similar petitions vide judgment dated 31.08.2022, passed in CWP No.342 of 2021 and other connected atters Annexure P- 6.

¶15

¶16

ii) That the respondents may be directed and petitioners may be awarded with seniority and consequential benefits along with arrers in terms of judgment of this Hon’ble Court datd 31.08.2022.

¶17

iii) That the services of the petitioners may kindly be ordered to be considered from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 2006 for all purposes and benefits i.e. pension and gratuity and other benefits that follows.”

¶18

Case as submitted by the learned counsel is, that being eligible the petitioners were initially appointed as teachers against sanctioned posts, in accordance with their eligibility under the Parents Teacher Association (Grant-in-Aid) Rules, 2006 on different dates, between the period from the year(s) 2006 to 2007. It is submitted that in terms of the Government decision dated 16.08.2013, the petitioners and many other similarly placed PTA incumbents, on completion of 7 years of such services were brought on government contract, in the month of January, 2015 .

¶19

He submits that the State Government took

¶20

a decision on dated 11.05.2018, that the PTA teachers,

¶21

¶22

alike the petitioners, were to be regularized on completion of three years of contractual service w.e.f. 1.4.2018 but the respondents have denied this benefit(s) to the petitioners from the due date i.e. 1.4.2018 whereas it was extended/granted to many other similarly placed and even junior incumbents, but the petitioners were regularized belatedly in the month of August 2020, which as per him, amounts to treating equal as unequal was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter in issue as to whether the contractual PTA-incumbents were to be granted regularization on completion of three years of contractual service, in terms of the Government decision dated 11.05.2018 w.e.f. 1.4.2018, the date on completion of three years of contractual service as PTA, stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, alongwith other connected matters, titled Yashwant Singh & Ors versus State of

¶24

¶25

Himachal Pradesh & Anr., decided on 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-6).

¶26

The Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the SLP filed by the State Authorities also stands by the Hon’ble Apex Court; and the judgment in the case of Yaswant Singh (supra), also stands implemented by the respondents; though the benefit of this judgment, has been given to similarly placed incumbents, including many juniors but the denial of similar benefits of regularization (on completion of three years of contractual service) to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.2018 (instead of having been granted w.e.f. August 2020) is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which has resulted, in denying the benefits of higher pay fixation/pay and the eligibility for other service benefits i.e. service scale or ACP etc. from an earlier date.

¶27

Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, at this stage, submits

¶28

¶29

that the delay in granting regularization to the petitioner(s) and others from the due date was in view of the pendency of litigation in CWP No.6916 of 2011 , titled as Pankaj Kumar vs. State of H.P. , before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was decided on 17.04.2020.

¶30

Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts and circumstances and the request, so made by the learned counsel, on instructions, prays for permission to make a representation to Respondent No.1-Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed by the State Counsel also.

¶31

Accordingly, this Court permits the

¶32

petitioner to make a representation to the Respondent No1- Principal Secretary (Education) within three weeks from today; with directions to the aforesaid respondent-authority to examine the case of the petitioner(s) in light of the judgment, passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra) ; against

¶33

¶34

which the SLP filed by State Authorities-Respondents stands dismissed and the judgment has been implemented in case of may other and even juniors, and then to pass appropriate orders, without discriminating the petitioners herein, in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter and not later than 8.1.2024. .

¶35

Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the merits of the matter and all questions of facts of law are left open .

¶36

As aforesaid, the instant writ petition, as well as, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶37

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶38

November 4, 2023 (himani)

Jitender Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Mrinal Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Mansara Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Anju Bala Vs State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar Vs Hrtc and Others

Daleep Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Savita Vs State of Hp and Anr.