IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 881 of 2006 Reserved on.: 11.8.2009 Date of decision: 17.8.2009 Rama Nand Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has laid challenge to the order dated 2.8.2006 passed by the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.879 of 1986 decided on 2.8.2006. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was employed as Shastri in Janta High School, Deoth, District Bilaspur on 23.6.1980. This appointment was made by the Chairman of the School Committee. Thereafter, the management of the Janta High School again fixed the interviews for the post of Shastri on 25.4.1981 and the petitioner was selected for the above said post. The Janta High School, Deoth, was taken over by the State of H.P. on 16.10.1981. The services of some of the employees of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the school were taken over but the services of the petitioner were not taken over. The petitioner worked in this school for some time even after take over but his services were terminated vide order dated 22.4.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.679 of 1985 in this Hon’ble Court. In the said petition, the following interim order was passed on 10.12.1985:- “Present: Shri M.G.Chitkara, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.N.Nag, Advocate General for the respondents. Interim order The Court has come across a few cases where the teachers of different categories working in the non-government schools, the management whereof is taken over by the Government, have been absorbed as teachers in Government service in relaxation of the conditions prescribed in that behalf. There is no apparent reason why such a benefit could not be conferred on the petitioner. Not to grant such benefit to the petitioner, while granting the same to others, would not only be unjust and inequitable but may also amount to inequality of treatment, if the situation is similar. Under the circumstances, the first/second respondent(s) is directed to review the case of the petitioner and to consider the grant of relaxation and of the consequential benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law and in conformity with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. The decision will be arrived at on or before December 23, 1985. Irrespective of whether the services of the petitioner were taken over at the relevant time, in view of the admitted fact that he has rendered service from October 16, 1981 to April 22, 1982, he is entitled to the salary for the said period. It is inconceivable that services could be obtained from any person without remuneration. Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from October 16, 1981 to April 22, 1982, within a period of four weeks from today.” 3 Thereafter, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh considered the matter. In his note ‘Annexure P-6’ he came to the conclusion that there were some cases where services of the employees in the Government schools had been taken over in relaxation of the rules. However, according to him these are stray aberrations and these aberrations should be treated as the exception and, therefore, he recommended that the claim of the petitioner be rejected. On the constitution of the H.P.State Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal. The main grouse of the petitioner was that even out of the employees of the Janta High School services of some of the employees had been taken over and services of some were not taken over. He, therefore, challenged the action of the respondents. The stand of the State in the writ petition was that the petitioner had not been appointed in accordance with law on 24.6.1980. It was further submitted that his name was recommended by the Employment Exchange and he was legally appointed after holding proper interview on 25.4.1981. The school in question was taken over on 16.10.1981 and, therefore, by that time the petitioner had only six months of service whereas requirement of the instructions of the Government is that the employee of the private school should have worked for at least one year to entitle him to have his services taken over by the State. It was also submitted that only one post of TGT(Arts), one post of TGT(Science), one post of Clerk and one post of Peon were created in the school and, therefore, the services of the petitioner could not be taken over. The petitioner filed a rejoinder and pointed out that Hindi and Sanskrit are taught all over the State and in other 4 private owned schools taken over by the Government the post of Shastri has been created and the person employed as Shastri was taken over as a Government employee. He made specific reference to one Shri Ranjit Singh, who was working as Shastri in Him Middle School, Kathla, Bilaspur and whose services were taken over. The stand of the State was that the appointment of Shri Ranjit Singh was made after approval of the State Government. We are proceeding to decide the case on the basis that the petitioner was regularly appointed as Shastri in Janta High School only on 25.4.1981 and not on 23.6.1980. This would mean that he had not completed one year of service. However, we find from a perusal of the Annexure P-1 attached with the writ petition that Smt.Sneh Lata was appointed as TGT(Science) and one Shri Anil Kumar as Clerk in the school consequent to interviews held on 25.4.1981 alongwith the petitioner. It is also not disputed that services of these two persons were taken over by the Government. There is no explanation worth the name to show why different yardsticks have been applied to the petitioner and these two persons. All of them were appointed on 25.4.1981. Therefore, none had completed one year when the school was taken over. They had all put in identical length of service. If the services of Smt.Sneh Lata and Anil Kumar could be taken over, what prevented the Government in taking over the services of the petitioner. True it may be that the petitioner may not have a vested right to have his services taken over since he had only put in six months service but when the State takes over the services of other employees who have rendered identical services to the petitioner some plausible explanation must be given, as to why there is 5 differentiation between the two similarly situate employees. Other than stating that the Government has taken a decision no ground is stated. The State must act fairly to all its employees. Article 14 of the Constitution which ensures that all citizens of the country are treated equally is the bedrock of our Constitution. There can be reasonable classification between different classes of people and the State can in certain cases justify why it has treated two employees differently but there is no proper justification given in this case. The only justification sought to be given is that the staffing pattern of the High School is different and the State did not create the post of Shastri in the school in question. There is no denial by the State that Sanskrit and Hindi are being taught even in High Schools. Further, the State has failed to explain why the post of Shastri in the middle school at Kathla was taken over. According to the State the staffing pattern of middle schools and high schools is different. However, the State has till date not shown what is the staffing pattern of High Schools. In our considered view, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility condition. However, the learned Tribunal fell into an error while rejecting the plea of the petitioner that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and he has been discriminated against without any valid reason. In view of the above discussion, we set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal and direct the State to take over the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.10.1981, like the other employees of the School. We have been informed that during the pendency of the petition the petitioner was initially appointed as TGT and thereafter as Shastri. Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition with a 6 direction to the State to treat the petitioner as a regular Shastri w.e.f.16.10.1981 and to pay him all the consequential benefits. The State is directed to pay the amount due and payable to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from today failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of CWP No. 679 of 1985 till date of payment of the amount. The petitioner shall also be entitled to claim his seniority from 16.10.1981 with all consequential benefits. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 17th August, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja), J. ™