Monika Joshi Vs the State of Hp and Another

“i. That the respondents may be directed to grant arrears to petitioner at least three years prior to filing of writ petition, on account of retrospective regularization, alongwith 9% interest, as done in cases of other similarly situated TGTs, strictly in terms of judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in LPA 54/2013 in CWP 7602/2010 titled as State of H.P. versus Om Parkash.

¶16

ii. That order dated 16-09-2024 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be modified qua petitioner and condition of paying the monitory benefits notionally to petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside or modified and respondents may

¶17

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes.

¶18

2

¶19

( 2025:HHC:34352 )

¶20

kindly be directed to pay the arrears to petitioner without any restrictions.

¶21

iii. That in alternate respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears to petitioner at least three years prior to filing of CWP 8024/2024 along with 9% interest.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has impugned office order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P- 4), whereby petitioner was ordered to be considered as deemed regular employee of the State from due date, however, the monetary benefits were extended to him only notionally. Learned counsel also highlighted another office order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby in somewhat similar circumstances, the respondents while granting regularization to some other similarly situated incumbents from the due dates, had ordered release of monetary benefits for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of filing of petition. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing office order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-4), alleging discrimination vis-àvis incumbents covered under office order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-7).

¶23

During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record copy of another office order dated 19.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and submitted that the respondents have now themselves decided to confer actual monetary benefits qua all similarly situated incumbents by restricting the same

¶24

3

¶25

( 2025:HHC:34352 )

¶26

to three years immediately preceding the date of filing of the writ

¶27

petition. Relevant portion of the office order reads as under:-

¶28

“Whereas, on the same analogy, 1080 petitioners have been considered as regular employees of the state from the date when they initially appointed/joined as Lecturers on contract basis with all consequential benefits vide office order No.EDN-H(19)B(1)-6/2010-11-Court cases, dated 10.09.2025. However, the monetary benefits are restricted only from three years proceeding to the date of filing of the petition.

¶29

Therefore, in view of the above and in order to ensure uniformity in respect of the implementations of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court of HP specifically drawing analogies with the cases decided on the analogy of CWP No. 414/2014- titled as Kuldeep Chand Vs State & others alongwith LPA No. 54/2013 titled as State of HP Vs Om Prakash, and all other connected matters, it has been decided that the monetary benefits qua the petitioners will be restricted to three years immediately preceding the filing of the writ petitions in respect of the petitioners of the office orders of even No. dated 06.09.2024, 05.10.2024, 06.11.2024, 11.11.2024, 14.11.2024, 26.11.2024, 12.12.2024, 08.01.2025 & 01.02.2025. However, it is clarified that these orders are issued only for the petitioners of those writ petitions which were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of HP till December, 2024.

¶30

The concerned Principal/Headmaster/Incharge of GSSS/GHS/GMS of H.P. is further directed that consequential benefits regarding monetary benefits qua the petitioners shall be released as per the instructions issued by the Finance Department H.P. vide letter No.Fin-E-I-C(17)6/08 dated 07.01.2012 &31.07.2024 and No. Fin-(PR)B(7)1/2021-Loose dated 17.09.2022.

¶31

These orders are issued as per approval conveyed by the Govt. vide letter No. EDN-C-P(3)3/2020dated 15.05.2024 & EDNC-E(5)21/2023 dated 23.08.2025.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent

¶33

4

¶34

( 2025:HHC:34352 )

¶35

authority(s) are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of actual monetary benefits for a period of three years prior to filing of writ petition, i.e. CWP No.8024 of 2024 (Monika Joshi Versus State of H.P. & others), keeping in view office order dated 19.09.2025. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶36

In view of above, the impugned office order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for conferment of actual monetary benefits by restricting the same to a period of three years prior to filing of the writ petition (CWP No.8024 of 2024) by her, inter alia, keeping in view office order dated 19.09.2025, within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶37

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶38

10^th October, 2025 (yogesh)

¶39

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Monika Joshi v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika Joshi v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Netar Singh Vs Land Acquisition Officer (Slau)-Cum-Competent Authority and Another

Subhadra Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hari Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others