Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief adjudicated; petition disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners prefer representations within two weeks, the competent authority shall consider and decide them in accordance with law within a further four weeks and communicate the order to the petitioners.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, initially appointed on contract basis as Assistant Professors (college cadre) against sanctioned posts through regular selection conducted by the H.P. Public Service Commission, should be treated as regularly appointed from the date of their initial appointment. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Noting that the petitioners had approached the Court under Article 226 without preferring any representation, and upon counsel's submission that representations would be preferred within two weeks, the Court directed that if such representations are preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide them in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks, and the order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioners.

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of in the above terms, and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were also directed to stand disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No. 630/2024 (decided 02.01.2025, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.): Contract-appointed Assistant Professors (college cadre) sought a mandamus to be treated as regularly appointed from initial appointment and to have contract service counted for increments, leave encashment, career progression, pension and seniority with arrears and interest @9% p.a. Observing that the petitioners had invoked Article 226 jurisdiction without making any representation to the competent authority, the Court, on counsel's assurance that representations would be filed within two weeks, directed the competent authority to consider and decide them in accordance with law within a further four weeks and communicate the decision. Petition disposed of accordingly, along with pending miscellaneous application(s); substantive claims left unadjudicated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 630/2024 Decided on: 02.01.2025

Anil Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

Notice. Mr. Dalip K Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2 . This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to treat the petitioners who are initially appointed on contract basis, as regularly appointed Assistant Professors (college cadre) from the date of their initial appointment keeping in view the fact that their qualifications, mode of recruitment, responsibilities, fundamental duties remained the same as they were appointed against the sanctioned posts through regular selection process conducted by the H.P. Public Service Commission.

(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioners for all purposes including the

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

2

purposes of annual increments, leave encashment, career progression scheme and for the purposes of counting the services towards pension and the contract service rendered by the petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority and they may kindly be released all the consequential benefits after counting of their contract service from the date of their initial appointment by granting the arrears along with interest @9% p.a in the interest of justice and fair play.”

3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of their grievances raised in the writ petition.

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring the representations within two weeks from today. In case, such representations are so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of four weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

2^nd January, 2025(rohit)