IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.459 of 2020 Decided on: 09.01.2026.

_____________________________________________P___________

Seema Devi & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?. No.

For the petitioners: Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate.

For the responudents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral]

C Petitioner, Seema Devi and five others have come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i). That the impugned orders of appointment of the applicants on contract basis may be H quashed and set aside.

(ii). That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant in view of the judgment dated 02.05.2012 rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in case C.W.P. No.7602/2010 titled Om Prakash Versus State of H.P. & others (Annexure A- 5) and consider them having appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on regular

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

basis instead of on Contract basis from the date of their initial appointment and allow all other consequential benefits including financial benefits.” P

2. This Court had passed the following orders on 05.01.2026:-

“Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers [TGT(s)] on contract basis.

2. Pursuant to the commencement of selection process in the year 2008-09, it is submitted that at the time of ocommencement of selection process the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of 1973 were in vogue which only provided for regular nomenclature of the post. It is averred that the State Authorities have issued the Recruitment & Promotion g Rules for the post of TGT(s) on

22.10.2009 [Annexure A-4] recognizing the contractual mode of appointment. It is further averred that once the contractual mode of appointment was recognized in the Rules only on 22.10.2009 [Annexure A-4], therefore, the aforesaid Rules cannot be applied in case of the petitioners who had a right to be appointed as TGT(s) under the 1973 Rules have regular basis for all purposes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgment passed by this Court in Poonam Thakur & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No.521 of 2024, decided on 1P2.01.2024, which as per the Learned Counsel for the petitioner stands implemented vide order dated 23.08.2025 by the Director of School Education, whereby, the benefit of deemfed regular appointment as Traineod Graduate Teachers [TGT(s)] has been extended to similarly placed incumbents.

4. Fraced with this situation, Learned State uCounsel prays for and is granted four days’ time to have instructions. List the matter on 09.01.2026.

3. The matter was listed on 05.01.2026 when L earned State Counsel was granted time to have Instructions. Accordingly, upon listing of the matter today [i.e. 09.01.2026] Learned State Counsel has H placed on record Instructions dated 06.01.2026 along with Office Order dated 15.12.2025 [Taken on Record] whereby benefit of deemed regular appointment as TGT(s) have been granted to all the petitioners.

4. Perusal of Office Order and the Instructions as referred to above indicate that the benefit of deemed appointment has been given to the petitioners as well as non-petitioners (TGTs) from the date of their initial contract appointment by treating them as deemed regular employees from initial date in applicable pay scales. .

5. So far as the monetary benefits are concerned, the order states that the monetary benefits will be applicable only to those petitioners who have filed their cases before the Court on or before the date of issuance of the orders.

6. Perusal of the material on record indicates that the instant petition was filed by the petitioner on

24.10.2016.

7. In the backdrop of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others,