Saroj Bala Vs State of Hp and others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Saroj Bala Vs State of Hp and others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of as prayed for, with directions: (i) State Authorities to examine petitioners' case in light of the Surendra Sharma judgment within six weeks; (ii) if petitioners found similarly placed, extend to them the admissible benefits extended to Surendra Sharma; (iii) consequential benefits restricted from the date of filing (31.07.2013) per the cited Supreme Court mandates; all pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, appointed as Nursery Teachers on 06.12.1997, are entitled to the benefit of Special JBT Certificate and regularization/regular appointment as JBT upon completion of 5 years (instead of 10 years) of service, on the analogy of benefits granted to other similarly placed Nursery Trained Teachers (Surendra Sharma). +1 more

Court's answer

State Authorities are directed to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment in CWP No.3544 of 2020 (State of H.P. & anr v. Surendra Sharma and Ors, decided on 06.11.2020) within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Upon consideration, in case the petitioners are found to be similarly placed, the admissible benefits as extended to Surendra Sharma [supra] shall also be extended to the petitioners.

Key takeaways

Since the petitioners filed the instant petition on 31.07.2013, the admissible consequential benefits are restricted for a period of three weeks, from the date of filing of the petition (wording as printed), and thereafter in terms of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274; State of M.P. v. Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538; Asger Ibrahim Amin v. LIC (2016) 13 SCC 797, followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (CA No.4134 of 2022).ratio¶51
This Court has not adverted to the rival contentions, claims and their admissibility or inadmissibility, which are left to be examined by the State Authorities in the aforesaid terms.obiter¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of H.P. (Shimla), CWPOA No.1650 of 2019, decided 13.10.2025 (Ranjan Sharma, Judge) — Service law / Nursery Trained Teachers. Petitioners, appointed Nursery Teachers on 06.12.1997, sought quashing of the rejection order dated 19.07.2010 and regularization as JBT with Special JBT Certificate on completion of 5 years' service instead of 10, per the State's decision dated 02.02.1999. Without adjudicating rival claims, and placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment in State of H.P. v. Surendra Sharma (CWP No.3544 of 2019, decided 06.11.2020, implemented vide communication dated 04.02.2021), the Court disposed of the petition directing: (i) examination of the petitioners' case in light of Surendra Sharma within six weeks; (ii) extension of the admissible benefits granted to Surendra Sharma if the petitioners are similarly placed; and (iii) restriction of consequential benefits from the date of filing (31.07.2013) in terms of the Supreme Court mandates in Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, Shiv Dass (2007) 9 SCC 274, Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin (2016) 13 SCC 797, followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (CA No.4134 of 2022).