JUDGMENT :

(Ranjan Sharma, J.)

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following relief:-

“That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioners from their initial appointment on contract basis till their regularization for the purpose of seniority, Promotion, increments, pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad v/s State of H.P. as we as in CWPOA No.5507 of 2020 titled as Oma Wati and another vs State.”

3. The case of the petitioners, as submitted by Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned counsel, is that the after due process, petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors (History) and (Commerce) [College Cadre], respectively, in the Department of Education, on contract basis on 06.04.2017. During the contractual employment, the respondents have given fixed contractual emoluments to the petitioners, as admissible under the Rules. He further submits that on completion of contractual service, the respondents had regularized the services of the petitioners, as Assistant Professors (History) and (Commerce) [College Cadre], on 20.11.2020.

4. Now, the grievance of the petitioner in the instant case, is that, the period of contractual service rendered by them as Assistant Professors, on regularization, may be counted for the purposes of service benefits, i.e. for seniority, promotion, increments, pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits.

4(i). The first grievance of Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, for counting of contractual service for seniority and promotion, as per him, stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled as Sh. Taj Mohammad and others versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters, decided on 03.08.2023, Annexure P-3. Placing reliance on this judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, he submits that the petitioners on the same principle may be extended the benefit of contractual service for seniority and promotion.

4(ii). The second grievance of the petitioners as raised, by Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned counsel, is that benefit of contractual service rendered by the petitioners may be counted for the purposes of increments and pensionary benefits, in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5507 of 2020, titled as Oma Wati and another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 21.08.2023, Annexure P-4.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, at this stage, has vehemently opposed the writ petitions.

5(i). So far as the first claim for counting of contractual service for seniority is concerned, it is submitted that counting of contractual service for seniority and promotion, without impleading the persons, who are likely to be affected, is impermissible in law. He further submits that once the contractual service, was based on such appointment under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and was accepted with open eyes, then, after joining and serving as such, the petitioners cannot turn around and seek a different status/benefit dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. He submits that the claim was not tenable on principle of approbation and reprobation as well as acquiescence. Mr. Rajan Kahol further submits that unless and until the pension in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules was assailed and adjudicated upon, till then, the contractual service cannot be counted for seniority/promotion as it will lead to conferring benefit to the petitioners from their initial appointment dehors the mandate of Rules.

He submits that once the contractual service cannot be counted for seniority, therefore, the claim for counting such contractual service for promotion,