Contractual service rendered following Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which subsequently leads to regularization without a break, must be counted toward seniority and consequential benefits, as the unequal bargaining power of the employee precludes the application of the doctrine of acquiescence.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

(Oral

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“I To issue necessary writ, order or direction to i the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioner H from the date of appointment i.e. 8.9.2011, and to count the entire service rendered by petitioner on contract basis, from the date of initial appointment followed by his regularization, for the purpose of increment and all other service benefits, with all consequential benefits in accordance with law, in view of the submissions made hereinabove.

(b) To quash and set aside the impugned tentative seniority list of clerks dated 18.12.2017 Annexure P- 4 and to redraw the same, with further direction to prepare the seniority list in the cadre of the Senior Assistant, in accordance with law and rules.

(c) To issue necessary writ, direction or order to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant, from the date when his junior(s) were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, with all consequential benefits.”

When this case was taken up for consideration on 19.06.2024, the following order was passe d:-

“Learned Senior Coounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition is being restricted qua relief (a) only a nd the petitioner is giving up reliefs (b) and (c), twith liberty to agitate these reliefs in future, if need so arises. Accordingly, this petition is restricted qua relief (a) of the relief clause, with liberty as prayed for.

Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned Deputy Advocaote General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Reply, as prayed for, be filed within a pCeriod of four weeks. List thereafter.”

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Education Department on contract basis strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, in the process of recruitment undertaken by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board. Learned counsel further submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 01.10.2016. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in light of the fact that the initial appointment of the petitioner, though on contract basis, was strictly in consonance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and further this contract recruit.ment culminated into regularization without any break etc., the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the servHice rendered by him on contract basis to be treated as regular service for all intends and purposes in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association versus State of Maharashtra , (1990) 2 Supreme Couurt Cases, 715, as followed subsequently also by this Couort and lately, in Taj Mohammad and others versus StateC of Himachal Pradesh and others, which judgment of this Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

By referring to the reply filed by the State, learned H Senior Counsel submitted that perusal thereof would demonstrate that the reason why the petitioners were denying the benefit of the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis, was the enactment of “The HP Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024”, by the State. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that now as the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold that the said Statue is ultra vires the Constitution of India, .there is no embargo in grant of the relief in favour of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned AdditHional Advocate General argued that in light of the fact that the petitioner is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, in terms whereof, he was appointed on contract basis only, he has no locus to file and maintain this petition. Learned Additional Advocate Geuneral submitted that the petitioner knew fully well that his oinitial