IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8687 of 2008. Decided on: 9.8.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Shiv Kumar … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) & (ii):- “(i). That the impugned Annexure A-3 dated 17th March, 2006 may be quashed and set aside; and (ii). That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant as Lecturer in the subject of English w.e.f. 5th September, 1997 with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary, seniority etc..” 2. In short reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 2 & 3:- “2. That the applicants in the present original application have been engaged on Special Contract basis for a period of five years. The matter with regard to the continuation of services of applicants was taken up with the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Govt. of H.P. has decided to renew the contract of applicants on year to year basis, therefore the applicants have been allowed to continue as per decision of the Government on year to year basis as per terms and conditions of the contract agreement. 3. That so far the salary for the vacation period is concerned, the Hon’ble High Court has stayed the judgment of Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1182/1997 Vijay Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh passed on 8.7.1999 and 15.9.1999 in CWP No. 144/2000 in CMP No. 257/2000 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Vijay Singh on 15.9.2000, therefore, the benefit as claimed in the present original application cannot be given till the final outcome in CwP No. 144/2000.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that though the petitioner is seeking regularization of his services as Lecturer (English) w.e.f. 5.9.1997, yet in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim is restricted only w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case as emerge out of the pleadings on behalf of the parties are that the petitioner had initially joined employment as Lecturer in English in a privately managed school at Dharampur Madhan, District Shimla, H.P. in the year 1994. However, later on owing to opening of a Government 3 Senior Secondary School in the near vicinity of the aforesaid privately managed school, number of children in +1 and +2 classes in the private school dwindled and as a result the petitioner was rendered jobless. It was at this stage that in terms of the policy formulated by the State Government with regard to granting employment to the teachers who were rendered jobless owing to opening of Government Schools in the area of privately managed schools, the petitioner was offered appointment as Lecturer on contract by the respondent-State. Thus, he had joined the employment of the respondent-Department on 5.7.1997 and continued as such up to 11.10.2000 when his appointment was converted from ‘contractual’ to that on ‘special contract’ basis and his services were later on regularised in the year 2008 on completion of eight years’ service on ‘special contract’ basis. 6. The petitioner is claiming benefit of the service rendered by him in the respondent-Department on contract basis from 1997 to 2000 for the purpose of reckoning the same towards eight years of service for regularization. The claim has not been specifically refuted in the short reply. 7. Along with the rejoinder the petitioner has filed a copy of letter dated 4.6.2007, Annexure-PA, from the Deputy Director, Higher Education, Shimla addressed to all the Principals, Government Senior Secondary Schools in Shimla District, captioned as ‘Regarding clubbing the period of Contract/Special Contract for regularisation’, text whereof is as under:- “Refer to the Director Higher Education, H.P. Shimla-01 vide letter No. EDN-H(19)B(1) 12/2005- 4 Contract dated 31 May, 2007 on the subject cited above. In this connection it is brought to your kind notice that the Government is inquisite to know the names and biodata/full details of such candidates who have been appointed on Special Contract basis who desire to club their period for regularization of contract prior to their engagement on special contract immediately. You are, therefore, requested to send the particulars of such candidates duly verified by you within seven days from the receipt of this letter so that the Govt. could be apprised accordingly.” 8. However, it appears that the proposal mooted under the aforesaid letter dated 4.6.2007, Annexure PA, was not brought to the logical conclusion and in the meantime the claim of the petitioner for clubbing the service rendered by him on contract and special contract for regularization was declined vide order dated 17.3.2006, Annexure A/3. 9. It further appears that as per Government Policy once the petitioner was rendered jobless in the circumstances enumerated hereinabove, he though was eligible for appointment on special contract basis, yet instead he was appointed on contract basis. However, the fact remains that he cannot be faulted on this count. Had he been initially appointed on special contract basis in 1997, he would have completed the requisite period of eight years service in 2005 when he would have become eligible for being considered for regularization of his services in terms of the policy framed by the State Government. 5 10. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as Lecturer (English) w.e.f. 1.1.2006 instead of 2008 within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall be payable within further two months, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be payable. 11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. August 9, 2011. (cr)