SITA DEVI vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

1
2026:HHC:46954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.16453 of 2025
Date of decision: 26.10.2026
Sita Devi …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others …..Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General, 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, inter alia,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i). That the writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be
issued quashing and setting aside the H.P. Recruitment and
Condition of Service of Govt. Employee Act, 2024 being
complete violation of constitutional mandate, in the interest
of justice.
(ii). That the writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be
issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned office
order/rejection dated 28.09.2024 (Annexure P-11), wherein
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:46954
the representation of the petitioner has been rejected
illegally, in the interest of justice.
High Court of H.P.
(iii). That the respondent may very kindly be directed to
count the services of the petitioner as Language Teacher
(Para Teacher) (Contract Teacher) followed by regularization
for the purpose of service benefits including pension and
increments and for the purpose of qualifying service etc. with
all consequential benefits including arrears accrued
thereunder be ordered to be paid with interest @12%, in the
interest of justice.
(iv). That the respondents may very kindly further be directed
to grant the service pension to the petitioner w.e.f due date
i.e. 29.02.2024 with all consequential benefits and arrear
accrued thereunder be order to be paid with interest @ 12%
in the interest of justice.
(v). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued directing the respondent department to treat the
petitioner regular employee of the State Govt. w.e.f. the date
of his initial engagement/appointment w.e.f. 31.05.2004 with
all consequential benefits in terms of the various judgments
passed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.
(vi) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued directing the respondents department to release all
the due and admissible service benefit in favour of the
petitioner w.e.f. due date, in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is not pressing the Relief No.(i) now, as the Act in issue
has been declared ultra vires to the Constitution of India by the
Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a
Para Teacher (Language Teacher) vide Annexure P-1 dated
31.05.2004. He continued to serve as such till her services were
regularized vide Annexure P-3 dated 19.12.2014 upon completion of
10 years of continuous service as a Para Teacher. Thereafter, the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:46954
petitioner superannuated from service on 29.02.2024. Her
High Court of H.P.
grievance is that in terms of Annexure P-11, her prayer to count the
service rendered by her as a Para Teacher for determining her
eligibility for the grant of pension has been rejected by assigning the
reasoning that she is not entitled for service rendered by her as a
Para Teacher to be counted for the said purpose as the Para
Teachers Policy was framed in the interest of students, as the
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Selection Board, Hamirpur, which
was responsible for selection of teachers, has come under a cloud
and it was a temporary hiring and it did not confer any right on Para
Teachers of regularization etc. As per learned counsel for the
petitioner, the fact of the matter remains that after the engagement
of the petitioner as a Para Teacher, her services were regularized
and she superannuated after rendering more than 09 years of
service and simply because she has not completed 10 years of
service post regularization, pension has been denied to her. Learned
counsel further submitted that the reasoning given in Annexure P-
11 to justify the denial of the pension to the petitioner by not
considering the service rendered by her as a Para Teacher, is not
sustainable in the light of the fact that Hon’ble Single Judge of this
Court in CWP No. 688 of 2024 titled Jagdev Singh and others
versus state of H.P. and others, decided on 27.09.2024 was pleased
to direct that the service rendered by the petitioner therein as a Para
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:46954
Teacher was to be taken into consideration for assessing the
High Court of H.P.
qualifying service of the petitioner therein for pension and the
judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge was upheld by the Hon’ble
Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No. 812 of 2025 titled State
of H.P. and others versus Jagdev Singh and others, decided on
26.02.2026.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as
the adjudications referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner
were matter of record, it be observed that the service which was
rendered by the petitioner as a Para Teacher shall be construed
and counted only for considering her eligibility to be eligible for
receipt of pension but the service rendered by her as such will not
be included in the regular service rendered by her so as to stretch
the service of the petitioner beyond 10 years for the grant of
pension.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all that
the petitioner wants is that the shortfall in the regular service of the
petitioner should not come in her way for non-grant of pension and
the service rendered by her as a Para Teacher, which was
continuous, should also be treated as qualifying service so as to
construe that the petitioner had rendered 10 years of service,
thereby rendering her eligible for grant of pension.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:46954
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as
High Court of H.P.
also learned Additional Advocate General and we have also
carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents
appended with the petition including the judgments referred to by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, which are appended with the
petition.
6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner herein was
appointed as a Para Teacher under the 2003 Para Teachers Policy.
It is also a matter of record that the services of the petitioner were
regularized in the year, 2014 alongwith other similarly situated
persons on completion of 10 years of continuous service as Para
Teacher. As from the date of her regularization, as the petitioner was
not having 10 years of service when she superannuated on
29.02.2024, pension has been denied to her. The reasons given in
the impugned order while rejecting the case of the petitioner for
grant of pension, do not satisfy us. Dehors as to what led to the
engagement of Para Teachers in the year 2003, fact of the matter
remains that these Para Teachers were engaged by the Department
and they were allowed to serve continuously for 10 years and
thereafter, their services were regularized. The above demonstrates
that the Para Teachers like the petitioner imparted education to the
students and their services were used and utilized by the
Department in the schools. That being so, denying the benefit of the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:46954
said long service rendered as qualifying service for the grant of
High Court of H.P.
pension, obviously is both arbitrary and discriminatory. It is arbitrary
for the reason that the engagement of the petitioner as a Para
Teacher was on the basis of the Policy of the State Government,
which was followed by regularization and that too against the
sanctioned post for which the petitioner was otherwise eligible at the
time of her initial engagement and in these circumstances, ignoring
the entire 10 years service rendered by the petitioner as a Para
Teacher to render her eligible for the grant of pension is nothing but
arbitrary. It is also discriminatory in the sense that if the recruiting
agency of the State came under a cloud, which led to the
engagement of Para Teachers, then it was not the fault of the
petitioner or other similarly situated persons. Fact of the matter
remains that rather than engaging teachers through the Subordinate
Selection Board, the Government took a decision to engage them
against a Para Teacher post. Not only this, after such teachers had
served for 10 years, their services were also regularized. It has also
not been disputed before us that such like teachers, who after
regularization completed 10 years of service, were also paid
pension. If that is so, then in our considered view, denial of pension
to persons like the petitioner by not taking into consideration the
service rendered by them as Para Teachers is discriminatory also,
for the reason that now it is settled law that wherein such like
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:46954
services, which initially may even be irregular, culminate into
High Court of H.P.
regularization, the minimum that can be done is that a part thereof
can be taken into consideration to add it to the regular service of an
incumbent so as to render such an incumbent eligible for at least for
the grant of pension. In this regard, we place reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in CWP No.688 of 2024,
Jagdev Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others ( supra) , as
also the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in LPA No.812
of 2025, titled State of H.P. and others versus Jagdev Singh and
others ( supra) in terms whereof, the judgment of the Hon’ble Single
Judge was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench.
7. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by quashing
Annexure P-11 and by directing the respondents that the service
rendered by the petitioner as a Para Teacher shall be treated as
qualifying service alongwith the regular service rendered by her so as
to render her eligible for the grant of pension. However, we clarify that
after adding the service rendered by the petitioner as Para Teacher as
qualifying service, the total service rendered by the petitioner for the
purpose of grant of pension shall be construed as 10 years only. In
other words, the petitioner shall be granted pension by construing that
she rendered 10 years of regular service with the Department and no
other benefit of the service rendered by her as a Para Teacher will be
granted to her. Regular pension be paid to the petitioner from the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:46954
month of December 2026 onwards. Arrears be paid to the petitioner
High Court of H.P.
within a period of 6 months failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled
for simple interest on arrears @6% per annum from the date of this
judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
(Yogesh Jaswal)
Judge
th
26 October, 2026.
( yogesh )
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 18:10:56 :::CIS