Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista and Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“i. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents for quashing the rejection order dt. 04.12.2024 Annexure P-10.

ii. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners to the following effect:-

a. That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow notional benefit of service to the petitioners as instructors in their respective trades from the date when the persons junior to them have been allowed the said benefit by taking into account their date of entry into service on Institute Management Committee basis as the relevant date for the determination of all service benefits.

b. That the respondent may kindly be directed to bring the salary and allowances of the petitioners at par with their juniors from the date of initial joining on Institute Management Committee basis by way of grant of notional increments.”

2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioners were earlier working as trainers in different subjects under Institute Management Committees of different Industrial Training Institutes of the State Government w.e.f. 30.09.2005 to 08.09.2010. Respondents-State took a conscious policy decision to take over the services of all the teaching and non-teaching employees who were engaged on contract basis through Student Welfare Fund, Institute Management Committee(s) and under other schemes up to 31.07.2015 in Government Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and Industrial Training Institutes of the Department of Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training, on contract basis who had completed 7 years or 9600 hours, whichever is earlier as one time measure, in the public interest, with immediate effect, subject to the condition that no litigation is subsisting and an undertaking to this effect shall be taken from all the concerned and issued a Notification on 03.10.2015 (Annexure P-3).

3. In pursuance of the policy decision notified on 03.10.2015, the respondents initiated the process of taking over the services and issued office orders in the years 2016 and 2017, whereby the services of the contract employees, who were working under Students Welfare Fund/Institution Management Committee, like the petitioners, were taken over on contract basis against the budgetary head in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, subject to the final outcome of SLP (C) No.20353/2016, titled, Raj Kumar and another vs. State of H.P. and Ors.

4. Though the petitioners were fulfilling the criteria as stipulated in the Notification dated 03.10.2015, but their services were not taken on contract basis when the office orders were issued in the years 2016 and 2017. They had approached this Court by way of CWP No.2615 of 2017, titled, Meenakshi Rana and others vs. State of H.P. and others a/w connected matters. However, during the pendency of the petitions, their services were taken over as per office orders dated 22.09.2018 and 26.09.2018 (Annexure P-6 colly), though they were senior to the persons, who were earlier offered appointments on contract basis. As per policy decision of the State Government, the services of the incumbents who had completed three years’ service on contract basis, were thereafter regularized.

5. Though the petitioners were senior when they were initially engaged as trainers, but their services were not regularized prior to their juniors. The aforementioned petitions and connected matters were disposed of on 10.01.2020 by this Court, observing that the petitioners could not substantiate the allegations that juniors ha