Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Ranjan Sharma, JJ.
Neelam Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of HP & others - Respondents
CWPOA No. 5636 of 2020
Decided On : 28-03-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kush Sharma and Ms. Prajwal Busta, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms.Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. P.M. Negi, Advocate
The petitioner was entitled to contract appointment and subsequent regularization based on continuous service and government policy, with compensation for delays in processing.
Headnote:
(A) Contractual Employment - Right to Appointment - The petitioner sought direction for execution of an agreement for appointment as TGT Medical on contract basis, claiming entitlement based on continuous service and government policy. The respondents failed to respond, leading to the petition being heard on the basis of available records. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Regularization of Services - The petitioner was entitled to regularization after completing three years of continuous service on contract basis, as per government policy. The court found that the delay in appointment and subsequent regularization was unjustified. (Paras 16-22)
(C) Compensation for Delay - The court directed payment of due amounts and compensation for the delay caused by the respondents in processing the petitioner’s appointment. (Paras 28-31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as TGT (Medical) on PTA-GIA basis and claimed entitlement to contract appointment based on government communications and continuous service. The respondents did not contest the claims.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was entitled to payment from 05.01.2015 and regularization from 01.07.2018, with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issues included the entitlement to contract appointment, regularization of services, and compensation for delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to contract appointment and regularization based on government policy and continuous service, emphasizing the need for timely action by the respondents.
Result: Petition allowed and disposed of in terms stated.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking mainly following reliefs:-
“(i) That the respondents be directed to execute the agreement in pursuance to appointment of applicant on contract basis and to permit the applicant to join his duties as TGT Medical on contract basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Jhagtan, Shimla H.P.
(ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to take disciplinary action/strict action in accordance with law against erring officer/official for exceeding its powers and thereby depriving the applicant to avail legal right to be taken on contract basis w.e.f. 03.01.2015. Further the loss incurred to the applicant on account of illegal acts may kindly be ordered to be compensated from the erring officer/official.
(iii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. Petition was filed in November, 2018 before the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla bearing OA No. 7069 of 2018. Despite granting time by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, no reply was filed on behalf of respondents till abolition of the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal.
3. After abolition of Erstwhile Tribunal, petition was transferred to this Court and was registered as present petition i.e. CWPOA No. 5636 of 2020. In August 2023, as a last chance four weeks’ time was granted to respondents/State to file reply and notices were issued to respondents No.4 and 5. Thereafter, matter was listed on 30.11.2023, 29.02.2024, 09.05.2024 and 18.07.2024, but respondents/State did not choose to file reply.
4. In the meanwhile, respondents No. 4 and 5 were also served. Respondent No.4 did not opt to contest the case and for non- representation on his behalf, he was proceeded ex-parte on 18.07.2024. Respondent No.5 did not file reply to petition.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, matter was heard on the basis of material placed on record with petition.
6. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a TGT (Medical) on PTA-GIA basis on 1.3.2016 and he completed more than 7 years of continuous service as PTA (GIA Rules 2006) in March, 2013. The State of HP took a policy decision to take over the services of PTA teachers on contract basis subject to terms and conditions notified and conveyed by the State vide communications dated 16.8.2013 and 24.5.2014 and instead of 8 years continuous service as PTA, the PTA teachers completing 7 years of continuous service were decided to be taken on contract as communicated vide letter dated 29.12.2014 (Annexure A-1).
7. Petitioner being eligible for taking over his services on contract basis was included in list of PTA teachers whose services were decided to be taken on contract on fixed salary of Rs.13,900/- vide Office Order dated 3rd January, 2015 wherein name of petitioner was at Sr.No.355 (Annexure A-2).
8. In furtherance to aforesaid decisions of the Government and terms and conditions notified for taking over the services on contract, petitioner approached respondent No.4 with prescribed contract/agreement on 5th January, 2015, (Annexure A-3) and medical fitness certificate dated 5th January, 2015 (Annexure A-4) and requested him to take over his services on contract basis.
9. It is further case of petitioner that vide communication dated 3rd January, 2015, in case of PTA teachers, the period of absence such as Extra Ordinary Leave availed for doing B.Ed/any other higher qualification required to be fulfilled under R&P Rules, Maternity Leave availed beyond 84/168 days (two separate spells of Maternity Leave), as the case may be, leave availed on medical ground should not be considered as break in service for
