The court emphasized the need for fair and non-discriminatory treatment in the regularization of services, in line with the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

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

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

3. The petitioner, who was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) (School Cadre) initially through Parents Teachers Association (PTA), under the H.P. Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, 2006, and as per the Government Policy was later brought on Government Contract; and was regularized on same post belatedly, has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to strictly implement policy decision dated 11.05.2018 and judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed in CWP No. 342/2021 to regularize the services of the petitioner from due date or w.e.f. the date of their juniors/contract teachers have been regularized i.e. 01.04.2018 alongwith all the consequential benefits for all intent and purposes.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioner accordingly and to calculate & pay arrears of salary consequent upon regularization of service from due date alongwith seniority etc. in service.”

4. Case of the petitioner as submitted by Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, learned counsel is, that being eligible, the petitioner was initially appointed and joined as Lecturer (Commerce) (School Cadre) on 24.09.2007 against sanctioned post under respondent No. 2-Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, in accordance with his eligibility under the Parents Teacher Association (Grant-in-Aid) Rules,2006. Learned counsel further submits that as per the Government decision dated 16.08.2013, the teachers including the petitioner, who was appointed through PTA and had completed seven years of such services were brought on government contract, in the month of January, 2015.

5. He also submits that while working as Teachers, on contract basis, the State Government further took a decision on 11.05.2018, for regularizing the services of PTA contractual teachers on completion of three years of contractual service w.e.f. 01.04.2018 and though the respondents have granted the regularization to many other similarly placed and even junior incumbents from due date i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2018, but the respondents were granted the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on 25.08.2020 belatedly has resulting in treating the equals as unequal which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter in issue, as to whether the contractual PTA-incumbents were to be granted regularization on completion of three years of contractual service, in terms of the Government decision dated 11.05.2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2018, the date on completion of three years of contractual service as PTA, stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 342 of 2021, titled as Yashwant Singh and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another alongwith connected matters, decided on 31.08.2022.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the SLP i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6966 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Yashwant Singh and Others, filed by State Authorities stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.04.2023 and the judgment in the case of Yashwant Singh (supra), also stands implemented by the respondents.

8. In the backdrop of the facts mentioned in Paras-1 to 6 above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents have granted the regularization to the teachers from the date of completion of three years of contractual service w.e.f 01.04.2018 to many similarly placed incumbents, including juniors then, the denial of similar benefit of regularization from the date of completion of three years of contractual service to the petit