The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to permit a fresh representation for retrospective regularization and the restriction on monetary benefits for a specified period.

JUDGMENT :

(Ranjan Sharma, J.)

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

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order intended to be passed herein.

3. The petitioner, being a Trained Graduate Teacher with the respondents-State and presently posted as such in GSSS Sanjauli, has filed the instant petition seeking the following relief:-

“That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner as regular employee of the respondent state from her initial appointment for all intent and purposes i.e. seniority, pay, increments, promotion, leave encashment etc. which are consequences of appointment or petitioner may kindly be regularized on completion of five years on 6th November 2013 when she completed the five years’ service with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.”

4. In terms of the prayer so made, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his claim only to the extent that the petitioner may be treated to have been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on regular basis from the date she was appointed as TGT (Arts) on contract basis, vide office order dated 7th November, 2008 [Sr. No.58], Annexure P-1. He further submits that the services of the petitioner were regularized, vide office order dated 22nd June, 2015 [Sr. No.1197], Annexure P-2.

5. The only grievance of the petitioner is that her services should have been regularized from the date of her initial appointment as TGT (Arts), i.e. 07.11.2008, Annexure P-1, as referred to above, in terms of the mandate of law by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.21 of 2013 in CWP No.6727 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. and others Versus Ravinder Kumar and connected matters, decided on 04.10.2019 [taken on record].

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already made a representation Annexure P-4, which is stated to be pending as yet.

7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, this Court permits her to make a fresh representation for claiming above benefits. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed and needs to be granted.

8. Accordingly, as prayed for, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make a fresh representation, to Respondent No.2-Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, in continuation of the earlier representation Annexure P-4, within two weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to decide the same, in light of the judgment referred to above and then to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly.

9. Upon consideration, in case, the petitioner is held entitled to retrospective regular appointment from the date of initial contractual appointment; then, arrears shall accrue from the due date of retrospective regularization, but actual monetary benefits shall be restricted for a period of three years only, prior to the filing of the instant writ petition on [11.10.2022], if any, in terms of the mandate of law in case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797, followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC Online S C 641] decided on 18.5.2022.

10. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all Questions of facts and law are left open.

In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, ac