2024:HHC:10453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 12181 of 2024
Decided on: 29.10.2024
Vidya Sharma … Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
respondents No. 1 to 3.
: Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate for
respondent No. 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(a) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be
issued, directing the respondents to reckon the contractual
service rendered by the petitioner exclusively for the purpose of
pensionary benefits, in accordance with the judgment dated
21.08.2023 passed in CWPOA No. 5507/2020, titled Oma Vati
& Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a
Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) on contract basis in the year 1996. She
continued to serve as such till 28.06.2002, when she was appointed
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2024:HHC:10453
on regular basis against the post of Shastri. The prayer of the
petitioner is that the service rendered by her on contract basis as a
JBT be taken into consideration for the pensionary benefit.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
having carefully gone through the averments made in the writ
petition as also the documents appended therewith, this Court is of
the considered view that the relief as is being prayed for by the
petitioner cannot be granted to her. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner was appointed on contract basis against the post of JBT.
However, she was not regularized against the post of JBT. She was
appointed by way of direct recruitment against the post of Shastri
and for the purpose of appointment of the petitioner against the post
of Shastri, her service on contractual basis as a JBT had no
relevance. In other words, while serving as a JBT on contract basis,
the petitioner participated in a separate process of direct recruitment
against the post of Shastri and she was appointed as such.
Therefore, it is not a case wherein the appointment of contractual
service of the petitioner, may be against one post or more than one,
resulted in her regularization against some other post. The
judgments being relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner
are to the effect that where a person has served on contractual basis
against different posts and the regularization of the incumbent is
3
2024:HHC:10453
against a different post, then, the contractual service is to be
counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits etc.
4. This Court reiterates that facts of this case are
completely different. Herein, her recruitment as a Shastri Teacher
was in a totally different process which was totally alien to her
serving the State as a JBT on contract basis. To clarify further, even
if the petitioner had not been serving the State on contract basis as
a JBT, she had a right to participate in the process of direct
recruitment against the post of Shastri, and on merit, if eligible, she
had a right to be appointed as such. It is not a case wherein it was
the service rendered by the petitioner as a JBT teacher on contract
basis, which resulted in any manner whatsoever in her direct
recruitment/appointment against the post of Shastri.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions, as this
Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is
accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
October 29, 2024
( )
narender