Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of H.P

For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Hemant K. Verma and Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocates General for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶11

Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶12

Satyen Vaidya, Judge :

¶13

The instant petition has been filed for the

¶14

following substantive relief:-

¶15

“That the respondents may kindly be directed to take over the services of the applicants as Post Graduate Teachers

¶16

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

-2-

¶18

(IP) on regular basis in the Education Department with effect from the date of their initial engagement as made by IT Company/private company for imparting IT education in government schools under respondent department with all the consequential benefits.”

¶19

Petitioners are working as Computer Teachers for more than two decades in Government Senior Secondary Schools (for short “Schools”) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. They have been employed by independent agencies, engaged by the State Government from time to time to provide infrastructure and manpower in the schools for teaching the subject

¶20

The Information Technology (IT) was introduced as an additional subject for the students of Classes 9^th to 12^th in 234 Schools in the State during academic session 2001-02. Two entities namely M/S Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) and Maharashtra Institute of Advanced Electronic and Computer Technology (MIAECT) were engaged to provide infrastructure and manpower by the State Government. In the second phase i.e. during academic session 2002-03, the State Government engaged RCC Chandigarh, later merged with DOEACC Society, New

¶21

-3-

¶22

Delhi to start IT Education in 260 additionally upgraded GSSS. In the year 2005, the services of DOEACC Centre, Chandigarh were availed to cover 588 Schools of the State. Subsequently, the services of M/S Everon Education Ltd were engaged for the period of 2008-2012 for providing the infrastructure and manpower to impart IT Education in 968 GSSS in the State. At the time of filing of the petition, the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Chandigarh had been providing required services.

¶23

The appointment, retrenchment, transfer, reallocation, payment and salary etc. in respect of IT Teachers in the State of Himachal Pradesh was assigned to the aforesaid agencies/service provider(s).

¶24

In short, the State Government has outsourced the provisioning of infrastructure and manpower for imparting IT Education in the State to run Schools since 2001-02.

¶25

The uncertainties enduring the careers of outsourced IT teachers had resulted in their taking

¶26

-4-

¶27

recourse to legal remedies. A batch of writ petitions along with LPA No. 352 of 2012 had come for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. LPA No. 352 of 2012 was outcome of judgment dated 12.1.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 14550 of 2008. The said batch of the matters was disposed of vide order dated 6.5.2014 in following terms: -

¶28

“2. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General made statement at Bar that the State/competent Authority had made a decision not to dislodge the appellant/writ petitioners, who are manning the posts as on today, despite of the fact that in terms of the directions passed in various cases, the State has to adjusted 767 candidates on the recommendation made by the Subordinate Selection Board. His statement is taken on record.

¶29

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioners stated at the Bar that the respondents be directed to frame a policy for redressing the grievances of the appellant/writ petitioners on the analogy, they have redressed the grievances of similarly situated employees. Their statements are also taken on record.

¶30

4. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of the appeal and the writ petitions as settled in terms of the statement made by learned Advocate General and with further direction to the respondent-State to explore the possibility of framing the policy in order to

¶31

-5-

¶32

redress the grievances of the writ petitioners/appellant as early as possible”.

¶33

The petitioners are seeking the relief, as noticed above, on the premise, firstly of their long tenure of engagement as outsourced employees, secondly the petitioners have alleged that their avenues for fresh recruitment were lessened as they had crossed the age of forty years and lastly , the entitlement on the basis of parity with treatment given to the PTAs ( Parent Teachers Association), GVS (Gramin Vidya Upasak) and Para Teachers, whose services were regularized by the State Government from time to time.

¶34

The instant petition was instituted by the petitioners in January 2016. It will be apt to notice here that thereafter the State Government has created a cadre of PGT Informatics Practice (PGT IP), keeping in view the availability of subject in Schools of the State.

¶35

The State Government vide notification dated 23.8.2016 amended the Himachal Pradesh, Education Department, Post Graduate Teachers Class-III (non-

¶36

-6-

¶37

gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2010, inter-alia prescribing the essential qualification of teaching experience of five years or more as a computer teacher in Schools of Himachal Pradesh for appointment to the post of PGT Informatics Practice (PGT IP). In sequel, the State Government had issued recruitment notice dated 8.9.2017, for initiating process of recruitment to the post of PGT (IP). The approved mode of selection was by way of interview only.

¶38

The above action of the State Government became cause for filing of another batch of writ petitions with CWPOA No. 2892 of 2020, titled as, Ravinder Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. & others as lead case before this Court. The petitioners in said petitions had taken exception to the aforesaid amendment carried in R & P Rules as also the prescribed mode of selection to the post of PGT (IP).

¶39

The State Government defended its action by contending that the mode of selection was a policy decision taken by the Council of Ministers. As regards the essential

¶40

-7-

¶41

condition of five years or more teaching experience in the Schools of Himachal Pradesh, it was submitted that the post of PGT (IP) involved imparting of education in a technical subject and also since the same was exempted from professional qualification of B.Ed, the requirement of teaching experience of five or more years was not unjustified.

¶42

The category of incumbents, to which the petitioners herein belong, was also represented in the aforesaid batch of petitions. They had propagated their cause on the basis of long service rendered by them as outsourced employees and the concomitant experience gained.

¶43

This Court dismissed the aforesaid batch of writ petitions vide judgment dated 21.8.2023 in following terms: -

¶44

“19. On careful scrutiny of the arguments raised on behalf of the respondent/State at the touch stone of the constitutional guarantee of equality in public employment, I have found the classification made by the State to be reasonable. The object of the State is to provide computer education to the students in the schools run by the State.

¶45

-8-

¶46

A special cadre of teachers has been created. The State is not unjustified in preempting only temporary or protem induction on the post of PGT (IP) in case the competition is thrown wide open throughout the country. Indisputably, the State of Himachal Pradesh being a hilly State has a large tract of difficult areas. It has almost 1/3rd of its area under a tribal belt. The climatic conditions also have their own peculiar features, which can deter any person not so acquainted with the conditions, to leave the job. In such events, on one hand, the education to the students will suffer adversely and on the other, the State will not be able to achieve the object. In this view of the matter, administrative decision of the State has a clear intelligible differentia and cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶47

20. Though, the State has not been very vocal in proclaiming its intent of imposing condition noted above of five or more years experience for the benefit of teachers, who have already worked for almost ten years for teaching the students in Government Schools on petty remunerations as outsourced employees, yet it can be inferred from the fact that the State has tried to take shelter of judgment passed in LPA No. 352 of 2016. That being so, it also cannot be said to be violating the right of equality in so far as it helps the State in achieving the objective of providing computer education to students in its schools. The selections shall only be from the candidates who fulfill all the requirements of R&P Rules. 21. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed”.

¶48

-9-

¶49

The respondents in their initial reply took a stand that the Government had taken a decision to impart IT Education throughout the State on outsource basis. The service providers were engaged to provide all the facilities viz hardware, software and manpower and other allied infrastructures for the purpose. The recruitment, retrenchment, reallocation and salary of IT Teachers was the prerogative and responsibility of the service provider(s). It has further been submitted that the decision of the Government to impart IT Education was only as an optional subject in the Schools of the State. 970 nonfunctional posts of Lecturers/PGT were converted into PGT (IP). The process to fill up these posts was initiated on 19.8.2011 through Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur. 748 candidates were selected and appointed as PGT (IP) against the vacant posts. The petitioners did not either participate in the said selection process or if participated could not qualify. In nutshell the respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization,

¶50

-10-

¶51

rather they can compete for the posts sought to be filled by the State Government in terms of prevalent service rules.

¶52

The 2^nd respondent herein through communication dated 11.7.2024 addressed to 1^st respondent submitted a requisition for 769 posts of lecturer (School-New) in the subject of Computer Science with request to start the recruitment process at the earliest.

¶53

Noticeably, the post of PGT (IP) had been renamed as Lecturer (School-New) Computer Science.

¶54

In order to shelve the further process on above referred communication dated 11.7.2024, the petitioners came up with an application bearing CMP No. 626 of 2024 for interim direction to the following effect: -

¶55

“it is, therefore, prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and during the pendency of the petition, the recruitment process as initiated vide Annexure X may be stayed with further directions to the State to complete the recruitment process which was initiated in the year 2017 for appointment of lecturer (computer science) by holding skill test through Directorate of Education for which 50% of the applicants were already put to skill test to the secure the ends of law and justice.”

¶56

-11-

¶57

The petitioners have raised a specific grievance in the said application that even the teachers appointed through PTA had been regularized but despite the directive of this Court, the State Government had not framed any policy for regularization of the petitioners. 1191 posts of Lecturers (Computer Science) were to be filled up by the Director of Education based on the skill test, which led to the filing of CWPOA No. 2892 of 2020 and other connected matters. Despite the fact that the petitions were dismissed by this Court on 21.8.2023, the State did not continue with the process and instead the State Government had sent fresh requisition to Himachal Pradesh Public Commission for filling up of 769 posts of Lecturers with age limit of 18 to 45 years.

¶58

In response, reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. It has been stated that the petitioners being employees of private companies could not be equated with employees employed by the State Government. It was also stated that in 1242 GSSS in the State, total numbers of 1321 IT Teachers were deployed through the service

¶59

-12-

¶60

providers engaged through Himachal Pradesh Electronics Development Corporation for the academic session 202324. As regards the abandonment of recruitment process initiated in the year 2017, it was submitted that after dismissal of CWPOA No. 2892 of 2020, the matter regarding restarting of recruitment process of Lecturers (Computer Science) was taken up with the Government of Himachal Pradesh, however, emphasis was laid that the recruitment should be made strictly in terms of R&P rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the earlier process in which the Director of Education was authorized by the State Cabinet to make selection of PGT (IP) on the basis of interview only, was abandoned in order to give way to the selection process to be undertaken strictly in accordance with R&P Rules. Total 769 posts were to be filled up.

¶61

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

¶62

The entire emphasis of the petitioners in seeking the relief, as noticed above, is based on the long tenure of

¶63

-13-

¶64

their engagement as Computer Teachers on outsource basis. It has been stressed and contended that on account of acts of omission and commission of the State Government, the petitioners have been placed in an irretrievable position. Despite the fact that they have spent substantial part of their lives in serving the interest of the State Government, their rights are not being protected. The petitioners are seeking equation with other categories of teachers viz PTA, Gramin Vidya Upasak and PAT Teachers. It has been contended that all such categories which initially were appointed in terms of different schemes were regularized after some time, whereas the petitioners have been left to reel under the same conditions for more than two decades.

¶65

The respondents on the other hand have raised objection to the contrary. Their stand is that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot direct the State authorities either to take over the services of the petitioners or to regularize such services for want of jurisdiction and domain. It has been submitted that

¶66

-14-

¶67

though the petitioners were appointed as outsource employees, they had got sufficient opportunities to compete in open selection process and hence cannot complain against the State Government.

¶68

It is a fact that the post of PGT (IP) was included in the cadre of Post Graduate Teachers of the State by amending the R&P Rules for Post Graduate Teachers Class-III (non-gazetted) in the State. In 2016, the said rules were further amended and essential qualification of five years teaching experience in the Schools in the State of Himachal Pradesh was added for the post of PGT (IP). The recruitment against the vacant posts of PGT (IP) was held in the year 2011 and obviously, the petitioners did not qualify the selection process. The selection process initiated in the year 2016 after amendment of the R&P Rules suited the petitioners but it could not attain finality in the circumstances, as noticed above, the vacancies are still existing. The State Government ostensibly had relaxed the R&P Rules in 2016 to accommodate the petitioners only.

¶69

-15-

¶70

Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners has laid much stress on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 , titled as, Dharam Singh & another vs. State of UP & another , 2025, SCC Online SC 1735 and Jaggo vs. Union of India & others SLP (C) 5580 of 2024 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deplored the adhocism in the matter of employment in public service in the classes of cases where the need is not sporadic or seasonal and rather is perennial in nature.

¶71

Undoubtedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the adhocism in public employment and in the given facts of above cases; directions have been issued to the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners therein. It will be apt to reproduce the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 25 to 27 of the judgment in the case of Jaggo (supra)

¶72

“25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have

¶73

-16-

¶74

increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

¶75

Misuse of "Temporary" Labels : Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

¶76

Arbitrary Termination : Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

¶77

Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

¶78

Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶79

-17-

¶80

Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits : Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

¶81

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it

¶82

-18-

¶83

against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶84

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country”.

¶85

24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh

¶86

(supra) has held as under:

¶87

“17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary

¶88

-19-

¶89

labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶90

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “adhocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

¶91

19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

¶92

i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment

¶93

-20-

¶94

(U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.

¶95

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

¶96

iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity

¶97

-21-

¶98

and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment.

¶99

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment.

¶100

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

¶101

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not

¶102

-22-

¶103

mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India”.

¶104

Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is true that the State Government has created a cadre of PGT for computer education. However, it is equally true that for one reason or the other, the long services of the petitioners have not received any recognition. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (supra) , the writ Court is not precluded from examining the administrative action, where it amounts to omission in discharge of public function in accordance with Constitutional Mandate.

¶105

The fact that the State Government had initiated computer education in all the GSSS in the State cannot be said to be without objective. Computer education indisputably is core of present educational curriculum. It

¶106

-23-

¶107

forms integral part of state governance. Thus, it is also an important part and parcel of the discharge of public function.

¶108

In this context, the mere fact that the State had taken a decision to outsource the infrastructure and manpower could have relevance, as a temporary measure only to negotiate the immediate requirements, but cannot be justified as a permanent feature in the teeth of what has been held in Dharam Singh and Jaggo (supra).

¶109

The matter can be viewed from another angle. The case of the petitioners can be viewed in the context of ever evolving concept of legitimate expectations, which now in Indian conditions need not necessarily be confined to be followed by a state promise. In Noida Entrepreneurs Association Noida & others vs. Noida & others (2011) 6 SCC 508 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An authority is under legal obligations to exercise the powers reasonably and in

¶110

-24-

¶111

good faith to effectuate the purpose for which the powers stood conferred.

¶112

In this context, “in good faith” means “for legitimate reasons”. It must be exercised bonafide for the purpose and for none other. The principle has been followed in a later judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & others vs. Brahmaputra Metallic Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 634 by holding that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 finds concrete expression. 29. Once the petitioners had rendered sufficient long service, in furtherance of fulfillment of State obligation, it was the responsibility and obligation of the State to have taken a decision to take over or regularize the services of the petitioners, who admittedly had the required qualification and sufficient long experience. In the peculiar circumstances, where the situation has turned irreversible for the petitioners, the State Government will not be justified merely by holding that it had framed R&P Rules

¶113

-25-

¶114

and some relaxation had been made in order to accommodate the petitioners and similarly situated persons. It would only be a lip service. The net result is that the petitioners having been rendered overage, they will not be able to compete in open competition.

¶115

The petitioners are agitating for their rights since long. In the peculiar facts of the case, the inaction of the State Government, in my considered view can be taken cognizance of in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 31. As noticed earlier also while disposing of LPA No. 352 of 2012 and other connected matter a Division Bench of this Court had required the State Government to explore the possibility of framing a policy vide judgment dated 6.5.2014, however, even after lapse of about eleven years, nothing concrete has been done save and except amending the service rules that too without having practically come to the rescue of petitioners.

¶116

The distinction being drawn by the respondents between the category of petitions with that of teachers regularized after initial appointments in PAT, GVU and PTA

¶117

-26-

¶118

schemes is also baseless and clearly manifests discrimination. The cardinal purpose behind regularizing the services of above categories was linked with permanency attached with nature of their services. The long services rendered by the petitioners coupled with creation of more than a thousand posts clearly establishes the permanent nature of posts against which the petitioners have now been working for more than two decades. Merely because their engagement has been through outsourced agencies, which also have changed hands from time to time, the substance of their having worked in furtherance of State obligation cannot be undermined.

¶119

Thus, keeping in view, the entire above addressed facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of petitioners at par with the PAT, GVU and PTA categories at least from the date of filing of instant petition by completing the entire exercise within twelve weeks from

¶120

-27-

¶121

receipt of copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶122

The petition is accordingly disposed of so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶123

(Satyen Vaidya) 17^th September 2025 Judge

¶124

(kck)

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Sardar Singh

Icici Lombard General Insurance Ltd. Vs Sonia Sharma

Paras Ram and Others Vs Collector Land Acquisition Sdo Civil Kullu and Others

Roshan Lal Vs State of H.P

Dr. Ram Narayan Thakur Vs Union of India

Sunil Kumar Vs Hrtc and Anr.