Junior Office Assistant appointed on contract basis through rules-based recruitment sought counting of contractual service for seniority; authority had rejected the claim. The High Court quashed the rejection order and directed that contract service be counted for seniority and consequential benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:HHC:11661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2753 of 2024 Decided on: 18.11.2024
Sh. Manoj Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. B. Nandan Vasishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of This petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“ (i) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the Impugned order dated 19.02.2024 i.e. Annexure P-5, whereby the petitioner have been denied the benefit of services rendered by them on Contract basis for the purpose of seniority with all the consequential benefits, being patently illegal and arbitrary besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land.
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent university, to count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension and release all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, thereby grant seniority, increments and all the
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2024:HHC:11661
consequential benefits from the initial date of appointment i.e. 25.10.2018. ”
3
2024:HHC:11661
date when the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, there was no break in service. It could also not be demonstrated that the quality of work that was being performed by the petitioner while serving on contract basis was different or distinct as from the work which now he is performing after his services have been regularised.
4
2024:HHC:11661
appointment itself is made in accordance with the Rules applicable to substantive appointments. ”
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
November 18, 2024 (Rishi)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contractual service rendered after recruitment per Recruitment and Promotion Rules and followed by regularisation must be counted for seniority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Versus State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on¶5
(1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 715
Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and othersApplied¶5
CWP No. 2004 of 2017, decided on 03.08.2023
Manoj Kumar
State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent University
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
