##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:8358 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 11081 of 2024 Decided on: 23.03.2026

Sanjay Kumar …….Petitioner

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mo han Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

____________________u_________________________________

For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia

prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a. That the respondents may kindly be directed to take over i the services of petitioner w.e.f. 8-7.2016 i.e. when approval

was granted by Cabinet with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation, arrears, pension etc.

b. That in alternate petitioner may be appointed as PGT (Mathematics) w.e.f. 22-09-2016, for which approval has been conveyed as per letter dated 22-09-2016 as done in case of other similar situated staff of Erstwhile College with all consequential benefits more particularly same may also be

counted for pensionery benefits.”

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 03:23:30 :::CIS

2

2026:HHC:8358

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of Swami Vivekanand College, Shivnagar, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. He was serving as a Lecturer in Mathematics, having been selected in accordance with the relevant Rules, by the Selection Committee. The petitioner was appointed as such vide appointment letter dated 18.12.1996. The College was taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Annexure P-3, notification dated 30.11.2015 with immediate effect. The decision to take over theo services of the petitioner and similarly situated incumbents was taken on 22.09.2016 in terms of Annexure P-5. This was followed by office order dated 24.10.2016, in terms whereof thhe services of the petitioner were taken over on contract basis on

the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the decision to take over the services of the petitioner on contract basis was taken on 22.09.2016, yet this date is not being treated as the date on which the services of the petitioner stand taken over. This is being done despite the fact that in terms of Annexure P-8, notification dated 11.10.2025, in compliance to the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2336 of 2022, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, an incumbent, similarly situated as the present petitioner, was

::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 03:23:30 :::CIS

3

2026:HHC:8358 ordered to be appointed on contract basis w.e.f. 22.09.2016 with all

consequential benefits like regularization, pay fixation, seniority etc.

4. Accordingly, as was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the act of the respondents of not granting the same

benefits to the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in light of the Himachal Pradoesh Recruitment Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, as services of the petitioner have been regularized after 12.12.2003 and therefore, he will be entitled for

shervice benefits from the date of regularization.

6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the reason which is being spelled out by the State to deny the reliefs being prayed for by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Herein the petitioner is not being seeking a mandamus qua date of his regularization. What is being sought by the petitioner is a mandamus that the date of his contract ap