Neelam Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2025CWP/15110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP No.15110 of 2025; decided 18.09.2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; regularization of services; Grant-in-Aid Policy 2006; Physical Education Teacher; PTA appointed contract teachers; three years continuous service; Yashwant Singh v. State of H.P.; CWP No.342 of 2021 (31.08.2022); death in harness; widow petitioner; no prior representation; competent authority to decide representation; six weeks timeline; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks; the competent authority to decide such representation in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Yashwant Singh judgment, within six weeks thereafter, and to communicate the order to the petitioner. ¶28-29

Neelam Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28-29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's late husband, a Physical Education Teacher appointed on 26.05.2006 who completed three years of continuous service as on 31.03.2018, was entitled to regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2018 in terms of Yashwant Singh v. State of H.P., rather than the regularization granted w.e.f. 05.08.2020. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Upon learned counsel's submission that the petitioner would prefer a representation within two weeks, the Court directed that if such a representation is made, the competent authority shall decide it in accordance with law and taking into consideration the Yashwant Singh judgment (CWP No.342 of 2021, decided 31.08.2022) within a period of six weeks thereafter, and shall communicate the order so passed to the petitioner. The Court did not itself decide the entitlement to regularization from 01.04.2018.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, as do any pending miscellaneous applications.

¶28-29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — Neelam Kumari v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.15110 of 2025, decided 18.09.2025 (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.). The petitioner, widow of late Sh. Luder Mani — a Physical Education Teacher appointed on 26.05.2006 at GSSS Ghat, District Mandi under the Grant-in-Aid Policy, 2006, who died in harness on 21.06.2021 — sought regularization of her husband's services w.e.f. 01.04.2018 (upon completion of three years' continuous service as on 31.03.2018) in terms of Yashwant Singh and others v. State of H.P., CWP No.342 of 2021, decided along with connected matters on 31.08.2022, whereas the respondent Department had regularized his services w.e.f. 05.08.2020. Observing that no representation had been preferred, and on counsel's undertaking that one would be filed within two weeks, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with law, taking the Yashwant Singh judgment into consideration, within six weeks thereafter, and to communicate the order to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15110 of 2025 Decided on: 18^th September, 2025

Neelam Kumari

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned

¶15

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

¶16

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶17

parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶18

3. Petitioner is wife of late Sh. Luder Mani. Her case is that her husband was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 26.05.2006 at GSSS Ghat, District

¶19

Mandi under the Grant-in-Aid Policy, 2006. He had

¶20

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶21

¶22

completed three years of continuous service as on 31.03.2018, therefore, was entitled for regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2018 at par with other PTA appointed contract teachers in view of policy circulated by the respondentState. Petitioner’s grievance is that the respondentDepartment instead of regularizing her husband’s services from the due date, regularized his services w.e.f. 05.08.2020. Her husband is stated to have died in harness on 21.06.2021.

¶23

4. Petitioner seeks applicability of Yashwant Singh and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another² in favour of her late husband for regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.04.2018. It is, however, seen from the record that the petitioner has not preferred any representation for the redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition.

¶24

5. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a

¶25

2 CWP No.342 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 31.08.2022

¶26

¶27

period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶29

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶30

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh