Disposed

Virender Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Nov 2023CWP/8523/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted petitioners, teachers under PTA rules, to submit representations regarding their regularization status. The Court issued directions to authorities to consider the cases without discrimination in light of a Division Bench judgment, without adjudicating the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioners to make representations to Respondents regarding regularization; directions issued to authorities.

Virender Kumar and Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8523 of 2023 Decided on: 6^th November, 2023

¶3

____________________________________________________ Virender Kumar & ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors. ….Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶7

For the petitioners : Mr. Harmohan Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶9

Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional

¶10

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

2. The petitioners, who are seven in numbers are Trained Graduate Teachers, TGTs, and Post-Graduate Teachers, PGTs (Lecturers School Cadre), have come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶12

“a. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the respondents may be

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶14

¶15

directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the completion of their respective three years contractual service w.e.f. March 2018 in pursuance of letter no.PER (AP) C-B(2)2/2018 dated 11^th May 2018.

¶16

b. That the respondents may be directed and petitioners may be awarded with seniority and all consequential service and due benefits etc. in pursuance of letter no.PER (AP) C-B(2)-2/2018 dated 11 May 2018.”

¶17

3. Case as submitted by the learned counsel is,

¶18

that being eligible the petitioners were initially appointed as teachers against sanctioned posts, in accordance with their eligibility under the Parents Teacher Association (Grant-inAid) 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 seven years of services were brought on government contract in the month of January, 2015.

¶19

4. He submits that the State Government took

¶20

a decision on 11.05.2018, that the PTA teachers alike the petitioners, were to be regularized on completion of three years of contractual service w.e.f. 01.04.2018 but the

¶21

¶22

respondents have denied regularization 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

5. 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 Government decision dated 11.05.2018 w.e.f. 1.4.2018 i.e. the date of completion of three years contractual service as PTA teachers, stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021 , and other connected matters, titled as Yashwant Singh & Ors versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., decided on 31.08.2022 .

¶24

6. 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

¶25

¶26

by the respondents; though the benefit of this judgment, has been given to similarly placed incumbents, including many juniors but denial of similar benefits of regularization from the date of completion of three years contractual service to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.2018 [instead of granting regularization w.e.f. August 2020], is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and 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

7. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, at this stage, submits 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.

¶28

8. 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

¶29

¶30

a representation (in case of PGT’s herein) to the Respondent No.2-Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh; and (in case of TGT’s herein) to the Respondent No.3-Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, State. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed by the State Counsel also.

¶31

9. Accordingly, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation (in case of petitioners who are PGT’s-Lecturers (School Cadre) to the Respondent No.2Director, Higher Education and in case of petitioners who are TGT’s) to the Respondent No.3-Director, Elementary Education, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, either separately or jointly; within three weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid Respondent(s) to examine/ consider the cases

¶32

of the petitioner(s) herein in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra); against which the SLP filed by State Authorities-Respondents stands dismissed and the judgment has been implemented and benefit of this Judgment has been given to many other incumbents including juniors, and then to pass appropriate orders, without discriminating the petitioners herein, in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter and not later

¶33

¶34

than 08.01.2024.

¶35

10. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted

¶36

to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all questions of facts and law are left open.

¶37

In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

¶38

stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶39

Judge

¶40

November 06, 2023 (Shivender)

Virender Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

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

Anil Kumar Vs Hrtc and Others

Daleep Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Savita Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Vinay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Suresh Chand and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others