Arti Rani vs State Of H.P. And Anr

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on be alf of t e respondents.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“I. That the Office Order dated 19th April, 2017, issued by the Office of the Director of Higher Education be declared as illegal, arbitrary whereby, the legitimate claim of the petitioner for regularization from initial date of appointment along with all consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1811 of 2008, titled as Dev Raj & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others, has been rejected by misconstruing and mis-appreciating the ratio laid down in the said judgment and hence, be quashed and set aside.

II. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the lien and continuous cause of action of the petitioner from the year 2017, when she has first espoused her cause by iling Original Application No. 927 of 2017, instead fr m the date of filing of CWP No. 7097 of 2024 decided on dated 14.08.2024, and consequent thereto, grant all consequential service and monetary benefits in favour of petitioner from the date of her initial appointment in terms of applicable stat tory rules, as her earlier claim was illegally rejected by the respondents vide (Annexure P-6).”

Petitioner had represented to the respondents seeking deemed regular appointment from the date of initial appointment on contract basis. This prayer was made on the analogy of decision rendered in Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P. and Others CWP No.1811 of 2008 decided alongwith connected matters on 14.11.2014 . Respondent No.2 rejected the aforesaid representation vide order dated 19.04.2017 primarily on the ground that in Dev Raj2 , post had been advertised on regular basis, but appointments had been offered on contract basis, whereas in case of petitioner, the post had been advertised on contract basis and, therefore, petitioner was appointed on contract basis. Hence, it was concluded that there was no question of conferring deemed appointment on regular basis upon the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment on contract basis.

Petitioner now seeks quashing of the aforesaid order on the ground that the relief claimed by the petitioner has already been allowed by the respondents under office order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) to similarly situated incumbents in view of law laid down in State of H.P. and others Vs. Ravinder Kumar LPA No.21 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 04.10.2019.

Learned co nsel for the petitioner submitted that the petiti ner w uld be satisfied in case respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the redressal of her grievances afresh in light of office dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) and Ravinder Kumar3 (Annexure P-7). Learned Assistant Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

In view of above, notwithstanding order dated 19. 04.2017, (Annexure P-6), this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents /Competent Authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in light of office order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) and Ravinder Kumar3 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, be also communicated to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.