IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2671 of 2010 Decided on: September 21, 2011. Sh. Madan Lal Sharma. …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as teacher on 1.12.1999 against JBT on contract basis. He passed his degree of Shastri from the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. On 9.5.2005, State took a decision to regularize the services of the contract teachers, who have completed eight years of service as on 31.12.2004 w.e.f. 1.1.2005 and those who completed eight years of service as on 31.12.2005 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized after eight years of service, but since the approval of the cabinet was received subsequently, he is not entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 26.2.2009. The relaxation was also given by the cabinet, in regard to the persons who were not having qualification of 10+2. 2. My attention has been drawn to Annexure P-2, a letter dated 9th May, 2005 addressed to Director of Primary Education, in which it has been clearly mentioned that contract teachers, who had completed eight years of service in Primary Education Department, shall be regularized in relaxation of the rules. The 2 persons who have completed eight years of service up to 31.12.2004 be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2005. Similarly, in regard to persons, who completed their eight years of service on 31.12.2005, were to be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 3. In the case of the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondents is that since the decision of the cabinet was taken afterward, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 26.2.2009. However, the petitioner had completed eight years of service on 31.12.2007 and was entitled to be regularized as per the policy of the Government and as per Annexure P-2, w.e.f. the next date i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.2008. In the case of similarly placed persons, though they were relaxed by a subsequent cabinet decision, but regularization was ordered from the date, they completed eight years of service. The case of the petitioner shall, therefore, be considered accordingly and the petitioner shall be similarly entitled to the relief accorded to other persons w.e.f. 1.1.2008. Consequential benefits shall also be released in favour of the petitioner, if any, after regularization. 4. The petitioner does not press the relief claimed in regard to calculation of the contractual service at this stage and he is at liberty to take appropriate remedy in future. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed partly. The orders be complied within a period of six months from the date of this judgment. Copy be given Dasti. September 21, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (krs) Judge. 3 CWP No. 2671 of 2010 Madan Lal Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents CWP No. 903 of 2010 Pitamber Dutt ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents CWP No. 904 of 2010 Smt. Sarita Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents CWP No. 905 of 2010 Sh. Gian Chand ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents CWP No. 906 of 2010 Sh. Sagar Dutt Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents CWP No. 907 of 2010 Sh. Pawan Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents CWP No. 908 of 2010 Sh. Niwas Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents CWP No. 909 of 2010 Smt. Pushpa Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents 4