IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPs No. 676 & 678 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.02.2011 ________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 676 of 2009 Karnail Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. 2. CWP No. 678 of 2009 Pramoj Kumar Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & another. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________ In both the petitions: For the petitioner(s): Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Both these petitions raising similar questions of fact and law have been connected and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The erstwhile DAV College Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, was taken over alongwith staff by the government vide Notification dated 28th August, 2001, Annexure 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ...2... P-2. At that time, petitioners Karnail Singh and Pramoj Kumar Sharma and one Smt. (Dr. )Meena Sharma were also working in the said college as Lecturers. As per terms and conditions of the take over, services of those members of the teaching staff who were already having service of more than one year at that time were to be taken over on regular basis and all those who had less than one year's service, on contract basis. Admittedly, both the petitioners and the said Smt. (Dr.) Meena Sharma were having less than one year's service at that time. However, even despite that their services were not taken over even on contract basis. Being aggrieved, they approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal successfully and consequentially, their services were taken over on contract basis vide letter dated 31st May, 2006, Annexure P-2, w.e.f. 28.8.2001, i.e., the date of take over of the college. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that later on in pursuance of a Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002 the State Government decided to regularize the services of the members of the teaching staff of the said college w.e.f. the date of the Cabinet decision, i.e., 27.12.2002 irrespective of the fact whether they were having services of more than one year or less than that. Consequently, services of the said Smt. (Dr.) Meena Sharma were regularized w.e.f. 27.12.2002 vide Notification dated 16th April, 2008, Annexure P5. 4. The petitioners are also craving for similar treatment as in the case of the said Smt. (Dr.) Meena Sharma. However, in ...3... this regard the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 2 of the preliminarily submissions and para 2(vii) on merits of their reply: “2. That, however, on 27.12.2002 it was decided by the Government to relax the condition of completion of one year service for taking over the services of remaining teaching/non-teaching staff of the erstwhile DAV College Sujanpur tihra. But this relaxation was granted only with the condition of fulfillment of qualification laid down by the University Grant Commission for the post of Lecturer (College cadre) subject to the approval of the H.P. University, Department of Finance and fulfillment of conditions of R&P Rules. It was also decided by the Government that the teaching staff who does not fulfill the condition of passing NET/SET will be given three years time to pass the same. If they still failed to do so they were to be posted as lecturer school cadre. 2(vii) That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. However, Km. Meena Sharma who was working with the petitioner as lecturer in the erstwhile DAV College Sujanpur was regularized because she possessed the PH.D. Degree acquired before 1993 and was eligible for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) at the time of taking over of College.” 5. True it is that the said Smt. (Dr.) Meena Sharma was already possessing Ph.d. degree at the time of taking over the college and is also stated to have cleared NET/SET thereafter. However, the fact remains that even with regard to those lecturers who had not qualified NET/SET, the only rider was that they would not be entitled for annual increments till they qualify NET/SET. 6. In view of the above, if on facts, the petitioners are also covered under the aforesaid Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002 and are similarly situate persons, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and a final decision with regard to regularization of their services as Lecturers in pursuance of the ...4... aforesaid Cabinet decision dated 27.12.2002 shall be taken within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners and the consequential benefits, if any, shall also be paid to them within the same time, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall also be payable. 7. Needless to say that till the petitioners qualify NET/SET they shall not be entitled for annual increments. 8. In view of the above, both the petitions stand disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 23rd February, 2011 (virender)