The need for the respondent to consider the petitioner's case in light of a previous judgment and to pass appropriate orders without discrimination.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Drawing Master, 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:-

“That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the due date i.e. January, 2018 i.e. on completion of 3 years continuous contractual service, in terms of the regularization policy and in terms of the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.342/2021 titled as Yashwant Singh & others v/s State of H.P. & others alongwith other connected matters (Annexure P-1), with all consequential benefits including seniority at appropriate place.”

3. Case of the petitioner as submitted by Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, learned counsel is, that being eligible, the petitioner was initially appointed as Drawing Master on 06.09.2007 against sanctioned post under respondent No.2- Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, in accordance with her 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.

4. 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 20.08.2020 belatedly has resulting in treating the equals as unequal which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. 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 Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another alongwith connected matters, decided on 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-1).

6. 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 Versus Yashwant Singh & Ors, filed by State Authorities stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.04.2023; and the judgment in the case of Yaswant Singh (supra), also stands implemented by the respondents.

7. 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 petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2018 [instead of granting him regularization w.e.f. 20.08.2020, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. The denial of regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.08.2020 has resulted in depriving the pet