Dismissed¶¶28

Amit Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2026CWP/5942/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of adhoc Lower Division Clerk refused where prior contractual service as Data Entry Operator at another campus constituted a distinct and different engagement; junior employees regularized June 2013; services dispensed with on term expiry 31.07.2014 without challenge; consequential benefits of pay, seniority, arrears denied; Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan deemed University; Ved Vyasa Campus Garli and Lucknow campus; consolidated salary vs pay band engagement terms; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; single-judge oral judgment; CWP No. 5942 of 2014; decided 07.03.2026; Justice Ajay Mohan Goel.

What did the court decide?

The appointment offer of the petitioner at Garli Campus was totally different and distinct from the offer that was there at Lucknow Campus of the University. ¶¶25

Amit Kumar Kashyap Vs Union of India — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to regularize the petitioner's services as Lower Division Clerk from June, 2013 (the date his junior was regularized) with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority and arrears. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

It could not be demonstrated that after the petitioner's adhoc engagement as Lower Division Clerk at Garli Campus (office order dated 15.02.2012), another Lower Division Clerk was appointed in Garli Campus and regularized in June, 2013.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The appointment offer of the petitioner at Garli Campus was totally different and distinct from the offer that was there at Lucknow Campus of the University.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The post offered vide Annexure P-5 was completely different from the post against which the petitioner worked in the Lucknow campus, and even the terms of engagement were different.ratio¶¶23
The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of services rendered by him at Lucknow campus for the purpose of regularization etc.ratio¶¶27
Since the petitioner's services stood dispensed with in 2014 and there is no challenge thereto in this petition, the petition has lost its efficacy and is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No. 5942 of 2014, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (decided 07.03.2026, Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge, oral): The petitioner, first engaged in 2010 as a contractual Data Entry Operator at Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Lucknow (Annexure P-1) and thereafter appointed purely adhoc as Lower Division Clerk at Ved Vyasa Campus, Garli w.e.f. 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-5), sought regularization as LDC from June, 2013 — the month his juniors were regularized — with consequential pay, seniority and arrears benefits, arguing that the principal employer was the same. The Court held that the Garli adhoc LDC appointment was totally different and distinct from the Lucknow contractual DEO engagement, in post as well as terms (consolidated Rs.7,000/- per month versus pay band Rs.5200-20200+1900 Grade Pay plus allowances); that no Lower Division Clerk engaged after the petitioner at Garli Campus was shown to have been regularized in June, 2013; and that his services had been dispensed with on expiry of his term (31st July, 2014) with no challenge thereto in the petition. The petition, having lost its efficacy, was dismissed, and pending miscellaneous application(s) were disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2026:HHC:6181

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 5942 of 2014

¶4

Decided on: 07.03.2026

¶5

Amit Kumar Kashyap …….Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?^{1 Yes}

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Saprsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shivpal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶9

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia

¶10

prayed for the following relief:-

¶11

“(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk from the date his junior has been regularized i.e. June, 2013 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, arrears, etc.”

¶12

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a Data Entry Operator, on contractual basis, in the year 2010, in terms of Annexure P-1, in Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Lucknow, deemed University. He continued to serve as such till he was sent to

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

2026:HHC:6181 the post of Lower Division Clerk in Ved Vyasa Campus, Garli, HP purely on adhoc basis vide Annexure P-5 on 15.02.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas persons junior to him have been regularized as Lower Division Clerk in the month of June, 2013, his services have not been regularized.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in light of the fact that the principal employer of the petitioner was the same, the petitioner should have been given the benefit of services rendered by him at Lucknow Campus of the respondent University and denial thereof by refusing regularization to the petitioner alongwith other incumbents in the month of June, 2013, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents took the Court through the reply filed by the respondents and submitted that the engagement of the petitioner at Garli campus was not in continuation to his earlier engagement at Lucknow campus. He submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Data Entry Operator at Lucknow Campus, on contract basis, whereas he was engaged vide Annexure P-5, in Ved Vyasa Campus, Garli, on adhoc basis, not as Data Entry Operator but as a Lower

¶18

¶19

2026:HHC:6181 Division Clerk. Learned Senior Panel Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was allowed to continue till the expiry of his term, i.e. 31^st July, 2014 and thereafter, as the services of the petitioner were no more required, his services were dispensed with. He submitted that none engaged after the petitioner at Garli Campus as a Lower Division Clerk stood regularized and persons, who were regularized, were serving earlier and were entitled for regularization.

¶20

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that initially in terms of Annexure P-1, the petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator, on contract basis, in Lucknow campus of the respondent University. Thereafter, extensions were given to him as Data Entry Operator and the last extension in terms of P-4 was from 12.10.2011 to 06.01.2012. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-5, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as a Lower Division Clerk in Ved Vyasa Campus, Garli, for a period of one year only. Now, whereas the engagement of the petitioner as a Data Entry Operator in the Lucknow campus of

¶21

¶22

2026:HHC:6181 the respondent-University was on a consolidated salary of Rs.7,000/- per month, the offer of engagement of the petitioner at Garli campus, on adhoc basis as Lower Division Clerk was in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200+1900 Grade Pay + usual allowances.

¶23

The above demonstrates that the post which was offered to the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 was completely different from the one against which he was working in the Lucknow campus of the respondent-University and even the terms of the engagement were different.

¶24

Not only this, it has not been refuted by the petitioner that indeed after the expiry of the term of the petitioner in the year 2014, his services stood dispensed with. It could not be demonstrated by the petitioner that after his engagement as a Lower Division Clerk, on adhoc basis, at Garli Campus vide office order dated 15.02.2012, another Lower Division Clerk was appointed in Garli Campus and was regularized in June, 2013.

¶25

Therefore, in the backdrop of the above facts, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appointment offer of the petitioner at Garli Campus was totally different and distinct from the offer that was there at Lucknow Campus of the University and the

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:6181 petitioner cannot claim the benefit of services rendered by him at Lucknow campus for the purpose of regularization etc.

¶28

Otherwise also, as services of the petitioner stood dispensed with in the year 2014 and there is no challenge thereto in this petition, therefore, also this petition has lost its efficacy and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶30

March 07, 2026 ( narender )

Amit Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Joginder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anita Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anjana Kumari Vs State of Hp

Ganesha Devi Vs State of Hp

Jai Lal Vs State of Hp and Others