IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 2004 of 2017 a/w

CWP No. 629 of 2028

.
Reserved on: 24.07.2023

.P
Decided on : 03.08.2023
CWP No. 2004 of 2017

H
Sh. Taj Mohammad and others .…Petitioners.

of
Versus

The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents.

CWP No. 629 of 2018
rt
State of Himachal Pradesh and another .…Petitioners.
ou
Versus

Lekh Ram and others …Respondents.

C

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.

h

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1
ig

CWP No. 2004 of 2017

For the petitioners : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.

H

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General

with M/s Navlesh Verma, Rakesh
Dhaulta and Pranay Pratap Singh,
Addl. AGs and M/s Gautam Sood,
Arsh Rattan and Sidharth Jalta, Dy.
AGs. for respondents no. 1 and 2.

1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 2

: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
for respondents no. 3 to 11.

.
CWP No. 629 of 2018

.P
For the petitioners : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with M/s Navlesh Verma, Rakesh

H
Dhaulta and Pranay Pratap Singh,
Addl. AGs and M/s Gautam Sood,
Arsh Rattan and Sidharth Jalta, Dy.

of
AGs.

: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate

rt with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
for respondents no. 1 to 9.

: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for

ou
respondents no. 10 to 22, 25 and 27 to
29.

: Respondents no. 23, 24, 26 and 30 ex

C

parte.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

h

As both these writ petitions have been preferred by the

ig

petitioners feeling aggrieved by Order dt. 25.05.2017, passed by the

H

erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Original

Application No. 3337 of 2016, titled as Lekh Ram and others vs. State

of Himachal Pradesh and others, the same were heard together and are

being disposed of vide a common judgment.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present

petitions are that the private respondents (hereinafter to be referred as

‘the original applicants’) filed an original application bearing No.

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 3

3337 of 2016, before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal, praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

.
.P
“(i) That the impugned seniority list dated
15.3.2016, Annexure A-11, whereby private

H
respondents have been assigned seniority above the
applicants, may be quashed and set aside.

of
(ii) That the respondent department may be
directed to re-draw the seniority list of Inspector Gr-
I in the respondent department, by counting the
rt
entire service rendered by applicants on contract
basis in the cadre of Inspector Gr-I from the date of
ou
their initial appointment followed by their
regularization, with all consequential benefits.
C

(iii) That if during the pendency of OA, any of the

private respondents is promoted to the post of Food
Supplies Officer, in that event the promotion of such
h

of the private respondents may also be set aside and

ig

the respondent department may be directed to

consider the applicants for promotion to the post of
H

Food Supplies Officer from the date of promotion of

their junior(s), with all consequential benefits,
including arrears of salary and interest at market
rate on delayed payments;
(iv) That respondent department may be directed
to count the entire service rendered by applicants on
contract basis, from the date of their initial
appointment followed by their regularization, for the
purpose of increments and all other service benefits,

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 4

from the date of their regularization, with all

consequential benefits.”

.
.P
3. Their case before learned Tribunal was that they were

initially appointed as Inspector Grade-I, on contract basis in the

H
department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, in the

months of September, 2008, May, 2010 and November, 2010. Their

of
recruitment was as per the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Food,

Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department Inspector Grade-I

rt
Class-III Non-Gazetted Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2007,
ou
issued vide notification dated 21.05.2007, through the Himachal

Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board. Upon completion of

C

five years of contractual service, they were regularized against the

h

post of Inspector Grade-I in the years 2015 and 2016 as per the
ig

policies of regularization of the contract appointees issued by the State

Government dt. 07.05.2015 and 22.04.2016, respectively. It was

H

further the case of the original applicants that the private respondents

in the original application, i.e. writ petitioners in CWP No. 2004 of

2017, were appointed in the respondent-Department as Clerks.

Thereafter, they were promoted against the posts of Food Inspector in

between the years 2011 to 2015, i.e. after the appointment of the

original applicants as Food Inspectors. It was further the case of the

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 5

original applicants that as their initial appointment, on contract basis,

was as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and same was

.
.P
followed by regularization, therefore, they were entitled for service

rendered by them on contract basis to be counted for seniority, over

H
and above the private respondents in terms of the law laid down by

of
this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008, titled as Narender Singh

Naik Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on

rt
14.09.2010, as upheld in LPA No. 271 of 2011, titled as State of

Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Narender Singh Naik, decided

ou
on 09.04.2013, which judgments were based on the law laid down by

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Direct Recruit Class-II

C

Engineering Officer’s Association Versus State of Maharashtra and

h

others, (1990) 2 SCC 715. It was also their contention that the
ig

judgment passed by this Court in LPA was further assailed by way of

Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein

H

the judgment of this Court was upheld.

4. The stand of the promotees before erstwhile learned

Tribunal was that their promotion against the post of Inspector Grade-

I was on regular basis before the regularization of the original

applicants, therefore, they were rightly assigned seniority over the

direct recruits. It was further their contention that as the regularization

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 6

of the original applicants was with prospective effect, therefore, they

were not entitled for service rendered by them on contract basis, to be

.
.P
counted for any benefit. The State also took the same stand as the

promotees before the learned Tribunal.

H
5. Learned Tribunal in terms of order dt. 25.05.2017,

of
allowed the original application by holding that in Narender Singh

Naik’s case, the contractually appointed Junior Engineers, who were

rt
subsequently regularized, were held to be senior to the subsequently

appointed direct recruits on regular basis, which judgment was upheld

ou
in appeal as well as by Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned Tribunal further

held that the precedents relied upon by the private respondents were
C

distinguishable as in none of those cases, the issue was with regard to

h

appointment on contract basis by following the regular process of

ig

recruitment in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

Learned Tribunal also held that the original applicants were appointed
H

as Inspectors Grade-I, though on contract basis, in the months of

September, 2008, May, 2010 and November, 2010, as per the

Recruitment and Promotion Rules by following the proper selection

process, whereas the private respondents at the relevant time were in

the cadre of Clerks and were not even borne in the cadre of Inspector

Grade-I. Learned Tribunal also held that at the relevant time, the

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 7

private respondents were not even in the feeder cadre of Inspector

Grade-I as their category was included in the promotion channel to the

.
.P
post of Inspector Grade-I only by way of amendment carried out in

the Recruitment and Promotion Rules vide notification dated

H
15.06.2010. Learned Tribunal also held that it was nobody’s case that

of
duties performed by Inspectors Grade-I appointed on contract basis

were different, as compared to those appointed on regular basis. It

rt
also held that the objection of the private respondents that the original

applicants had neither challenged the regularization policy(s) nor

ou
previous seniority lists as earlier issued on 11.04.20214 and

31.08.2015, was without any merit because the original applicants

C

were basing their claim for seniority from the date of initial
h

appointment on account of their subsequent regularization, and as far

ig

as the seniority lists issued by the Department of the years 2011 and

2014 were concerned, the original applicants could not have

H

challenged the same as they were at the relevant time serving on

contract basis. Learned Tribunal allowed the original application by

directing the department to count the entire service of the original

applicants, including initial service on contract basis, followed by

regularization towards seniority alongwith consequential benefits for

further promotion.

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 8

6. Feeling aggrieved the private respondents therein as well

as the State, have filed the respective writ petitions.

.
.P
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in CWP No. 2004 of

2017 argued that the order passed by learned Tribunal is not

H
sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that learned Tribunal

of
erred in not appreciating that as the initial appointment of the original

applicants was on contract basis, therefore, they were not entitled for
rt
counting of the said service for any purpose including seniority, as the

regularization of the original applicants was with prospective effect

ou
and there was no challenge to the same by the original applicants.

Learned Counsel further argued that as the promotion of the

C

petitioners against the post of Inspector Grade-I, was before the

h

regularization of the original applicants, therefore also, the original

ig

applicants were not entitled to the relief as stood granted to them by

the erstwhile learned Tribunal. Learned Counsel further argued that

H

the benefit conferred upon the original applicants by learned Tribunal

was otherwise also legally not sustainable in law as the same was

against the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following

judgments:-

(i) Registrar General of India and Another vs. V. Thipa

Setty and Others, (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 690;

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 9

(ii) R.K. Mobisana Singh vs. Kh. Temba Singh and Others,

(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 747;

.
.P
(iii) Surendra Kumar and Others Vs. Greateer Noida

Industrial Development Authority and Others, (2015)

H
14, Supreme Court Cases 382;

of
8. Learned Advocate General submitted that the stand of the

State in the writ petitions be construed to be the same as stood argued

rt
by the writ petitioners in CWP No. 2004 of 2017.

9. Defending the order passed by learned Tribunal, learned

ou
Counsel for the private respondents/original applicants argued that as

the initial appointment of the original applicants was as per the

C

Recruitment and Promotion Rules and made through the Subordinate

h

Services Selection Board, which was the recruiting agency as per the
ig

Recruitment Rules, the original applicants were entitled for the benefit

of seniority, once their services were regularized, from the initial date
H

of their recruitment in terms of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Direct Recruits case (supra) followed by State of

West Bengal and Others Versus Aghore Nath Dey and others (1993) 3

Supreme Court Cases 371 and Narender Singh Naik’s judgment of

this Court supra. He also argued that the recruitment of the Original

Applicants as Inspector Grade-I in between 2008 to 2010 was made

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 10

by following the rigors of the Recruitment Rules and simply because

they were offered appointment on contract basis, the same cannot

.
.P
obliterate the reality that the recruitment was as per the Recruitment

Rules and through the agency prescribed in the Rules for making

H
recruitments. He further argued that when the original applicants were

of
appointed on contract basis as Inspector Grade-I, the writ petitioners

were not even borne in the cadre, and in fact were not even in the
rt
feeder category for the post of Inspector Grade-I as was rightly held

by learned Tribunal. He further submitted that the order of

ou
regularization of the private respondents was not challenged by the

petitioners, and therefore, they are estopped from assailing the order
C

passed by the learned Tribunal as the order was in sync with the law
h

declared on the subject by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ig

Learned Counsel further argued that as the original applicants were

already performing the duties of Inspector Grade-I when the writ

H

petitioners were promoted against the said post and as their services

were subsequently regularized by the State, therefore, the original

applicants were entitled for the service rendered by them on contract

basis, to be counted towards seniority and other consequential

benefits, in view of the fact, that their initial recruitment on contract

basis was as per the Recruitment Rules. He also submitted that the

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 11

judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners had no

bearing on the factual matrix of the present case and therefore, these

.
.P
petitions being devoid of merit be dismissed.

10. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well

H
as learned Counsel for the private respondents and also gone through

of
the pleadings as well as Order under challenge and the record of the

erstwhile learned Tribunal.

11.
rt
It is not in dispute that the initial recruitment of the

original applicants against the post of Inspector Grade-I in between

ou
the years 2008 to 2010, though on contract basis, was by following the

Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed by the Department under

C

the proviso to Article 309 to the Constitution of India for appointment

h

to the post of Inspector Grade-I. It is further not in dispute that the

ig

recruitment process was undertaken by the Himachal Pradesh

Subordinate Services Selection Board, i.e. the agency recognized by

H

the Recruitment Rules. The original applicants were recommended for

appointment to the department by the said Board. It is further not in

dispute that the petitioners participated in the process by way of open

competition in which, hundreds besides them, also participated. Thus,

the recruitment of the original applicants against the post of Inspector

Grade-I, though on contract basis, was not a backdoor entry but was

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 12

by following the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed by the

department for direct recruitment against the said post. The

.
.P
appointment of the original applicants on contract basis was a

fortuitous circumstance, as the department took a decision not to grant

H
regular appointment to the original applicants for reasons best known

of
to it. It is also not in dispute that at the time when the original

applicants were recruited as Inspector Grade-I, on contract basis, the

rt
writ petitioners were serving as Clerks and were not yet borne in the

cadre of Inspector Grade-I. It is also not in dispute that before the

ou
issuance of notification dt. 15.06.2010, the post of Clerk in the

Department was not even in the feeder category to the post of

C

Inspector Grade-I. It is further not in dispute that the regularization of

h

the original applicants against the post of Inspector Grade-I was never
ig

assailed by the writ petitioners.

12. A five judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

H

Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer’s Association Versus

State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases

715, while dealing with the issue of seniority and promotion inter se

direct recruits and promotees, held that the principle for deciding inter

se seniority has to confirm to the principles of equality spelt out by

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 13

Articles 14 and 16. In Para-13 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as under:-

.
.P
“If an appointment is made by way of stop-gap
arrangement, without considering the claims of all the

H
eligible available persons and without following the
rules of appointment, the experience on such

of
appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a
regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference
in the appointment. To equate the two would be to treat
rt
two unequals as equal which would violate the equality
clause. But if the appointment is made after considering
ou
the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee
continues in the post uninterruptedly till the
C

regularisation of his service in accordance with the

rules made for regular substantive appointments, there
is no reason to exclude the officiating service for
h

purpose of seniority. Same will be the position if the

ig

initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the

rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the
H

present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory

and arbitrary. This principle has been followed in
innumerable cases and has been further elaborated by
this Court in several judgments including those in
Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. and others (1981) 1
SCR 449, and Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
Committee and others v. R.K. Kashyap and others,
(1989) Supp. 1 SCC 194, with which we are in
agreement. In Narender Chadha and others vs. Union of

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 14

India and others, (1986) 1 SCR 211, the officers were

promoted although without following the procedure

.
prescribed under the rules, but they continuously

.P
worked for long periods of nearly 15-20 years on the
posts without being reverted. The period of their

H
continuous officiation was directed to be counted for
seniority as it was held that any other view would be

of
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. There is
considerable force in this view also. We, therefore,
confirm the principle of counting towards seniority the
rt
period of continuous officiation following an
ou
appointment made in accordance with the rules
prescribed for regular substantive appointments in the
service.”
C

Further, in Para-47 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court was

thereafter pleased to hold as under:-

h
ig

“(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according

to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of
H

his appointment and not according to the date of his

confirmation.

The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial

appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules
and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in
such post cannot be taken into account for considering
the seniority.

(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following

the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 15

continues in the post uninterruptedly till the

regularisation of his service in accordance with the

.
rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.”

.P
13. Thereafter, in State of West Bengal and Others Versus

H
Aghore Nath Dey and Others, (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 371, a

three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing

of
with the conclusions (A) and (B) in Para-47 of the Direct Recruit’s

case (supra), held as under:-

rt
“21……… We shall now deal with conclusions (A) and
ou
(B) of the constitution bench in the Maharashtra
Engineers' case, quoted above.

22. There can be no doubt that these two conclusions

C

have to be read harmoniously, and conclusion (B) can

not cover cases which are expressly excluded by
h

conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to

ig

conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to

enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial
H

appointment and not according to the date of

confirmation, the incumbent of the post has to be
initially appointed, according to rules'. The corollary
set out in conclusion (A), then is, that 'where the initial
appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules
and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in
such posts cannot be taken into account for considering
the seniority. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A)
expressly excludes the category of cases where the

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 16

initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to

rules, being made only as a stop-gap arrangement. The

.
case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this

.P
corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the
officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account

H
for counting the seniority.

23. This being the obvious inference from conclusion

of
(A), the question is whether the present case can also
fall within conclusion (B) which deals with cases in
which period of officiating service will be counted for
rt
seniority. We have no doubt that conclusion (B) cannot
ou
include, within its ambit, those cases which are
expressly covered by the corollary in conclusion (A),
since the two conclusions cannot be read in conflict
C

with each other.

24. The question therefore, is of the category which

h

would be covered by conclusion (B) excluding

ig

therefrom the cases covered by the corollary in

conclusion (A).
H

25. In our opinion the conclusion (B) was added to

cover a different kind of situation, wherein the
appointments are otherwise regular, except for the
deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down
by the rules. This is clear from the opening words of the
conclusion (B), namely, 'if the initial appointment is not
made by following the procedure laid down by the
rules' and the later expression 'till the regularisation of

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 17

his service in accordance with the rules'. We read

conclusion (B), and it must be so read to re-councile

.
with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial

.P
appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not
limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the

H
appointment order itself, and is made subject to the
deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by

of
the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for
the post being cured at the time of regularisation, the
appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner
rt
for a regular appointment on the date of initial
ou
appointment in such cases. Decision about the nature of
the appointment, for determining whether it falls in this
category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the
C

initial appointment itself and the provisions in the rules.

In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural
h

requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at

the first available opportunity, without any default of
ig

the employee, and the appointee must continue in the

post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his
H

service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the

appointee is not to blame for the deficiency in the
procedural requirements under the rules at the time of
his initial appointment, and the appointment not-being
limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a
regular appointment, subject to the remaining
procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at
the earliest. In such cases also, if there be any delay in

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 18

curing the defects on account of any fault of the

appointee, the appointee would not get the full benefit

.
of the earlier period on account of his default, the

.P
benefit being confined only to the period for which he is
not to blame. This category of cases is different from

H
those covered by the corollary in conclusion (A) which
relates to appointment only on ad hoc basis as a stop-

of
gap arrangement and not according to rules. It is,
therefore, not correct to say, that the present cases can
fall within the ambit of conclusion (B), even though they
rt
are squarely covered by the corollary in conclusion
ou
(A).”

14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siraj Ahmad Versus State

C

of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 19 Supreme Court Cases

480, by relying upon the principles laid down by it in Direct

h

Recruit’s case (supra) held as under:-

ig

“18. The constitution bench in unequivocal terms holds

that, if an appointment is made by way of stopgap
H

arrangement without considering the claims of all the

eligible persons and without following the rules of
appointment, the experience of such appointment
cannot be equated with the experience of a regular
appointee, because of qualitative difference in the
appointment. It however holds, that if the appointment
is made after considering the claims of all eligible
candidates and the appointee continues in the post

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 19

uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in

accordance with the rules made for regular

.
substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude

.P
the officiating service for purpose of seniority.

19. The constitution bench concludes thus :

H
“47. To sum up, we hold that:

of
A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post
according to rule, his seniority has to be counted
from the date of his appointment and not according to
rt
the date of his confirmation.
ou
The corollary of the above rule is that where the
initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according
C

to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the

officiation in such post cannot be taken into account
for considering the seniority.
h
ig

B) If the initial appointment is not made by following

the procedure laid down by the rules but the
H

appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till

the regularisation of his service in accordance with
the rules, the period of officiating service will be
counted. …….”

20. It can thus clearly be seen, that the Constitution

Bench in unequivocal terms holds that, if the initial
appointment is not made by following the procedure
laid down by the rules, but the appointee continues in

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 20

the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his

service in accordance with the rules, the period of

.
officiating service will be counted.

.P
21. It is not in dispute, that except the concurrence of
the U.P. Public Service Commission the appointment

H
of the appellant has been made after following the
procedure prescribed under the said Rules. The

of
appellant has uninterruptedly served till the
regularisation of his service which was made in
rt
accordance with the rules. It can thus be seen that the
case of present appellant is squarely covered by the
ou
judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers
Association (supra).”
C

15. The above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

h

make it amply clear that if the initial appointment is made after

ig

considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointees

continued on the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of the

H

service in accordance with the Rules made for regular substantive

appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service

for the purpose of seniority and same will be the position if the

initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the Rules

applicable to substantive appointments.

16. Coming to the facts of the present case, the initial

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 21

appointment of the original applicants admittedly was made in

accordance with the Rules applicable to substantive appointment to

.
.P
the post in issue and through the Recruitment Agency prescribed in

the Recruitment Rules. The only thing was that rather than offering

H
appointment to the original applicants on regular basis, they were

of
offered appointment on contract basis and their services were

subsequently regularized, as has already been mentioned

hereinabove.
rt
ou
17. Thus, in the backdrop of the factual scenario of the

present case, learned Tribunal rightly held the original applicants to

C

be entitled for seniority from the date of their initial appointment on

contract basis, followed by regularization, as their initial

h

appointment was made by following the Rules in vogue for making

ig

substantive appointment against the post and the process of

recruitment was undertaken by the Subordinate Selection Board in

H

which the claims of all eligible candidates were considered.

18. Now coming to the judgments relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioners, in Registrar General of India and

Another Versus Thippa Setty and Others (supra), the issue before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to regularization of an

ad hoc appointee who had worked as an ad hoc employee for a

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 22

sufficiently long time. In the backdrop of the factual matrix

involved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was pleased to hold

.
.P
as under:-

“If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back

H
date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of
regularly appointed employees in the cadre and,

of
therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take
effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must
also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual
rt
labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to
ou
strict discipline of service and it is a matter of
common experience that their attendance is very often
not regular and at times they do not even meet the
C

qualification for appointment since they are taken on

ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by
h

way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care

ig

must be taken to see that they do not upset the

seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify
H

in a given case or not is not relevant but what is

relevant is that regularisation should be prospective
and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting
the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal
must take care to see that when they pass orders of
regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are
likely to be affected on account of that order are not
before that court and unwittingly their careers are not
adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 23

regularisation must be prospective.”

In the present case, neither the appointment of the original

.
.P
applicants was on ad hoc basis nor it was by either overlooking the

basis of recruitment envisaged in the Recruitment Rules or by

H
granting any kind of relaxation to them. Therefore, this judgment

of
has no applicability as far as the present case is concerned.

19. In R.K. Mobisana Singh Versus KH. Temba Singh

rt
and Others (supra), again Hon’ble Supreme Court was seized with

the case wherein the ad hoc promotions were made not only in
ou
excess of the quota in the absence of availability of any vacancy but

also without consultation of the Recruitment Commission which

C

had become defunct. In the backdrop of this factual matrix, Hon’ble

h

Supreme Court by taking note of various judgments including the

ig

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit’s case

(supra), was pleased to hold as under:-

H

“41………. If they had been given regularisation with

retrospective effect, the same by itself may not be a
ground to apply the said order ipso facto for
determining the inter se seniority. Seniority although
is not a fundamental right but a civil right. Such a
right of the direct recruits could not have been taken
away without affording an opportunity of hearing to
them.

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 24

42. It was obligatory on the part of the official

respondents to take into consideration that the

.
retrospective regularization could be granted only

.P
when there exists such a rule. If rules were not
followed at the time of grant of promotion, question of

H
grant of regularization with retrospective effect would
not arise. Retrospective regularization whether in

of
terms of the directions of the High Court or otherwise,
thus, although could confer other service benefits to
the officer concerned, but the same cannot be held to
rt
be of any assistance for reckoning seniority with
ou
retrospective effect.”

20. Similarly, in Surendra Kumar and others Versus

C

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Others

(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of
h

contractual appointees whose appointment were not against any

ig

sanctioned posts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that

such appointees, on the basis of a policy decision of the

H

Government for regularization of contractual employees, cannot

seek regularization from a retrospective date.

21. All the three judgments relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioners were pertaining to either ad hoc or

contractual appointees/promotions wherein appointments or

promotions were not as per the Recruitment Rules nor was through

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 25

the agency prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for appointment

and promotion. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble

.
.P
Supreme Court in the said cases has no applicability as far as the

facts of the present writ petitions are concerned.

H
22. Before parting, we would like to refer to the

of
judgment of this Court in CWPT No.6785 of 2008, titled as

Narender Singh Naik Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and

rt
Others, decided on 14.09.2010, which was relied upon by the
ou
learned Tribunal for granting relief to the original applicants.

23. Learned Single Judge in CWPT No.6785 of 2008,

C

titled as Narender Singh Naik Versus State of Himachal Pradesh

and Others, decided on 14.09.2010, held that the petitioner therein

h

was appointed as a Junior Engineer on contract basis by following

ig

the selection process on 03.01.1995 and his services were

H

regularized in the year 2008. The grievance of the petitioner was

that the department was not counting the period of service rendered

by the petitioner on contract basis till the date of his regularization,

which the learned Single Judge held, was an issue no more res

integra, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Direct Recruit’s case (supra) and learned Single Judge

allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents therein, to

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 26

consider the case of the petitioner, for counting the period he had

worked on contract basis w.e.f. the year 1995, till his regularization

.
.P
with all consequential benefits.

24. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was

H
challenged by the State vide Letters Patent Appeal No.271 of 2011,

of
titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Narender

Singh Naik. Said appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Division

rt
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.04.2013, upholding the
ou
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Same was assailed

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Petition(s) for

C

Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34038 of 2012, titled as

Surender Singh Versus State of H.P. Ors., which was dismissed by

h

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ig

25. Therefore, as the foundation of the order passed by

H

the learned Tribunal, subject matter of these writ petitions, was the

judgment of this Court in Narender Singh Naik’s case (supra),

which judgment itself was based on the Five Judge Bench

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit’s case

(supra), and as the learned Tribunal rightly held that the services

rendered by the original applicants on contract basis were liable to

be counted for the purpose of seniority and consequential benefits

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS

 27

after their regularization, as the initial appointment of the original

applicants on contract basis was after following the procedure

.
.P
prescribed in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, we do not find

any infirmity in the said findings and further as we do not find any

H
merit in the writ petitions, the same are dismissed by upholding the

of
order passed by the learned Tribunal. No order as to costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

rt (M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
ou
Chief Justice

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

C

August 03, 2023 Judge

(narender/rishi)
h
ig
H

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2024 14:30:52 :::CIS