Sanjeev Kumar and Others vs State of H.P. and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) This Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 and 2 to regularize the services of the Petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher with effect on completion on 8 years service as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons, with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent State to count period of contract service rendered by Petitioners on contract basis as School Cadre TGT Teachers before regularization for the purpose of increments and pension with all consequential benefits along with such interest as this Hon''ble Court deems fit as per law declared by this Hon''ble Court in CWP (T) 7712/2008 Paras Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP (T) 7712/2008., LPA 36/2010 Sita Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh LPA 36/2010. and LPA 154/2010 Sarojini Bansal v. State of Himachal Pradesh LPA 154/2010. and Uma Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh. and accordingly grant increments as are due to them within a period of six weeks.

Amongst other contentions, it is submitted that the Government itself has taken a stand in favour of the Petitioners as per Annexure P-8, decision in case of the similarly situated persons. Therefore, in the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first Respondent to look into the matter and in case the Petitioners are similarly situated as the incumbents covered by Annexure P-8, order passed by the Government, similar treatment shall be given to the Petitioners herein also. The needful, as above, shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with one set of the writ petition before the first Respondent by the Petitioner concerned.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any..