Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
VIKAS GUPTA, S/O SH. S.P.GUPTA & ORS. - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3743 OF 2021, CWP NO. 1339 OF 2021, CWP NO. 1755, 1756 OF 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021
For The Appellant :MR. ADARSH K. VASHISTA, ADVOCATE
For The Respondent:MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and 16 - Temporary/ad-hoc/contract - Seeking parity - Benefits of seniority, increments, allowances and arrears of pay - Petitioners was on contract basis in HPSES under DPEP or SSA as case may be - Petitioners continued to be contract employees of HPSES - State Government for last many years has adopted mode of recruiting the personnel to be employed in its various departments either on temporary/ad-hoc basis or on contract basis, notwithstanding fact that their requirement was predictably permanent - State Government, from time to time, has come up with various Schemes/Policies services of such temporary/ad-hoc/contract employees have been regularised after a specific period of time ranging from 3 years to 10 years - Demand for their regularization on completion of continuous and uninterrupted services of more than 8 years - They claimed that ever-since their employment on contract basis, they had been discharging the duties assigned to them to satisfaction of their superiors and nothing adverse had been conveyed against them regarding performance of duties Seeking parity - Petitioners had also sought parity with EGS Instructors were appointed under the Education Guarantee Scheme in SSA and had been permanently absorbed in Education Department teachers in Government Primary Schools after having worked there for only four years – Held, Case clearly suggest that respondents had held out a clear promise to petitioners regarding grant of benefit of regularization of their services - Petitioners have been allowed to work on contract basis for more than 20 years continuously itself was sufficient to instill a feeling of security of job in the petitioners - Respondents had represented to petitioners that their employment was not permanent - Petitioners had every reason to believe that their services would be regularized as same treatment was being meted to contract employees in other departments - petitioners have brought themselves into such stage of life, ostensibly under the legitimate expectation, that any clog on continuity of their respective jobs at this stage will be catastrophic for them - Petitioners had fallen in circumstances which had inculcated a legitimate expectation in them that their services would be regularized at par with the other Government employees and such expectation in the given facts cannot be termed as unreasonable or excessive evident conduct of respondents amount of denial of a legitimate expectation of petitioners and thus, leads to the violation of Article 14 of Constitution - Financial benefits, if any, shall be permissible to petitioners only for a period of three years immediately preceding the filing of these petitions - Petitions are disposed of.
ORDER :
Since all these petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, these have been heard and are being decided together by a common judgment.
2. The substantive reliefs as prayed in these petitions commonly are as under:
“(I) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the condition incorporated in order, dated 16.12.2020, Annexure P-8 to the effect that “The services of the employees of the Society would stand automatically dispensed with and they will not be considered for taking over in Government Departments.”
(II) That the order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-12) may kindly be modified and the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners after completion of the requisite years of services as per their date of joining on contract basis, as per the Government Policy prevailing at the relevant time along with all consequential benefits of seniority, increments, allowances and arrears of pay.”
3. Petitioners in CWP Nos. 1756 and 3743 of 2021 are the technical staff (Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Draftsman), whereas, petitioners in CWP Nos. 1339 and 1755 of 2021 were non-technical staff (Lecturers, Accountants, Data Entry Operators, Clerks and Peons) employed with Himachal Pradesh School Education Society (HPSES). The HPSES was formed in 1995 initially to implement District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and later programmes/projects such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) and currently “Samgra Shiksha”. The above noted holistic programmes/ projects have been launched from time to time to focus on provision of basic quality School education to all in mission mode.
4. Initial recruitment of all the petitioners was on contract basis in HPSES under DPEP or SSA as the case may be. Petitioners continued to be contract employees of HPSES till their regularization on 16.12.2020. Before their regularization, as noticed above, majority of the petitioners have continuously served on contract basis for more than 20 years. Petitioners are now aged in the range of 40 to 56 years.
5. The State Government for the last many years has adopted mode of recruiting the personnel to be employed in its various departments either on temporary/ad-hoc basis or on contract basis, notwithstanding the fact that their requirement was predictably permanent. Therefore, the State Government, from time to time, has come up with various Schemes/Policies whereunder services of such temporary/ad-hoc/contract employees have been regularised after a specific period of time ranging from 3 years to 10 years.
6. Petitioners also raised the demand for their regularization on completion of continuous and uninterrupted services of more than 8 years. They claimed that ever-since their employment on contract basis, they had been discharging the duties assigned to them to the satisfaction of their superiors and nothing adverse had been conveyed against them regarding performance of the duties. Seeking parity, with contract employees in other departments of the State Government, whose services were regularised, from time to time, petitioners raised their claim. Petitioners had also sought parity with EGS Instructors (Teachers), who were appointed under the Education Guarantee Scheme in SSA and had been permanently absorbed in the Education Department as “Gramin Vidya Upasaks” i.e. teachers in the Government Primary Schools after having worked there for only four years.
7. The Executive Committee of HPSES on 23.02.2012 resolved to grant regular pay scale to its contractual employees including petitioner. Vide office order dated April, 2012, the employees who had completed 8 years of service as on 31.3.2010 and 31.3.2011, respectively, were granted revised contractual remuneration at par with the Government employees in other departments, thus the petitioners also availed the said benefit.
8. Vide letter dated 24.10.2011, the State Project Director had a
