Statutory service rules at selection commencement prevail over inconsistent advertisements or policies; pre-new rules contract appointees deemed regulars from initial date with full benefits, as rules non-retrospective and supreme.

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioners, Som Dutt, and eleven others Trained Graduate Teachers, have come up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-

“I. That the Rule 4.15-A (II), 15-A(Vii) (c), 15-A (Vii) (g), 15-A (vii) (h) of the Recruitment and Promotion rule dated 22.10.2009 vide Annexure P/2 framed for the appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers on contract basis may be declared Ultra Virus being the same opposed to the public policy and further being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

II. That the terms of format contract/ agreements vide Annexure P/1 entered by the respondents with the petitioners under the pressure of circumstances where the petitioners were on weaker footing and had unequal bargaining power may be declared unfair, unreasonable and against the public interest.

II(A). That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioners on regular basis from their initial date of appointment instead of contract appointment along with all consequential benefits with interest."

III. That the Rule 2 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services P/2) (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 may kindly be declared null and void same being the violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

IV. That the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the disparity in the pay scale of the petitioners who are contract appointees with respect to the regular appointees by applying the principle of Equal Pay for the Equal Work.

V. That the respondents may kindly further be directed to grant the equal Pay and Allowances to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments along with interest @ 18% per annum as being paid by the respondents to their regular appointed Trained Graduate Teachers.

VI. That the respondents may further be directed to calculate and pay the arrears to the petitioners along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of their initial appointment by applying the principle of Equal Pay for the Equal Work.”

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset, submits that so far as Prayer no II (A) is concerned though the State Authorities have stated in the Instructions dated 13.09.2024 [Taken on record] that the above benefits stands extended to the petitioners No. 3, 4, 6 and 12 by giving them the benefit deemed appointment from date of initial contractual appointment in terms of the office order dated 16.06.2024, but accruable financial benefits have not been released to them, as yet. Learned Counsel submits that so far as the petitioners 1, 2, 5, 7 & 11 are concerned they have not been granted the benefits as extended to the petitioners no(s) 3, 4, 6 and 12, despite being similarly placed. Learned Counsel submits that so far as petitioners no(s) 8 to 10 are concerned, they may be granted the liberty to claim relief, by making representation to concerned authority. Prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned State Counsel and therefore, liberty as prayed for, is granted.

2(i). Regarding Prayer No. IV, claiming Equal Pay for Equal Work is concerned, Learned Counsel for petitioner states that he may be permitted to file an appropriate representation before Competent Authority for asserting such claim. Learned State Counsel does not oppose the same also. Accordingly, this Court leaves it open to the petitioners to raise a claim regarding Equal Pay for Equal Work, as in Prayer No. IV with the Competent Authority expeditiously and not later than one month from today