BIMLA DEVI vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No. 11546 of 2025
a/w CWP Nos.12336, 12337, 12344,
12379, 12602, 12612, 12613, 12626,
12631, 12680, 12693, 12694, 12916,
12991, 13053, 13110, 13344, 13473,
13502, 13711, 13731, 13738, 13827,
13909, 13967, 14482, 14507, 14516,
14560, 14610, 14836, 15526, 15785,
15786, 15953, 20999 of 2025 and CWP
Nos.2675, 2678, 2679, 2680, 2681, 2682,
2683, 2684, 2685, 2686, 2687, 2689,
2690, 2691, 2692, 2693, 2694, 2695,
2696, 2697, 2698, 2699, 2700, 2701,
2702, 2703 of 2026
Reserved on : 29.04.2026
Decided on : 23.07.2026
Uploaded on : 23.07.2026
1. CWP No.11546 of 2025
Parveen Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
2. CWP No.12336 of 2025
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
3. CWP No.12337 of 2025
Ashok Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-2-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
4. CWP No.12344 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
Pankaj Sharma & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
5. CWP No.12379 of 2025
Yashwant Singh & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
6. CWP No.12602 of 2025
Mahender Kishore & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
7. CWP No.12612 of 2025
Bhag Singh & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
8. CWP No.12613 of 2025
Shyam Lal & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
9. CWP No.12626 of 2025
Susham Lata & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-3-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
10. CWP No.12631 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
Gian Chand & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
11. CWP No.12680 of 2025
Man Singh & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
12. CWP No.12693 of 2025
Om Prakash & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
13. CWP No.12694 of 2025
Anil Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
14. CWP No.12916 of 2025
Reena Mehta & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
15. CWP No.12991 of 2025
Hitesh Bhandari & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-4-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
16. CWP No.13053 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
Raman Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
17. CWP No.13110 of 2025
Shivnandan Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
18. CWP No.13344 of 2025
Vivek Verma & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
19. CWP No.13473 of 2025
Vikas Walia & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
20. CWP No.13502 of 2025
Gautam Mani & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
21. CWP No.13711 of 2025
Vimal Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-5-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
22. CWP No.13731 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
Pawan Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
23. CWP No.13738 of 2025
Kuldeep Chand & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
24. CWP No.13827 of 2025
Surjeet Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
25. CWP No.13909 of 2025
Suneel & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
26. CWP No.13967 of 2025
Narain Singh & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
27. CWP No.14482 of 2025
Anjana Kumari. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-6-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
28. CWP No.14507 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
Girdhari Lal & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
29. CWP No.14516 of 2025
Chanchal Singh & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
30. CWP No.14560 of 2025
Dhirendar Singh Kahsyap & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
31. CWP No.14610 of 2025
Kanta Devi & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
32. CWP No.14836 of 2025
Neeraj Kant & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
33. CWP No.15526 of 2025
Neeraj Bala & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-7-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
34. CWP No.15785 of 2025
High Court of H.P.
Surender Sharma & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
35. CWP No.15786 of 2025
Kanwar Singh & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
36. CWP No.15953 of 2025
Naveen & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
37. CWP No.20999 of 2025
Vijay Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
38. CWP No.2675 of 2026
Bimla Devi. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
39. CWP No.2678 of 2026
Anita Chauhan. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-8-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
40. CWP No.2679 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
Parveena Chauhan. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
41. CWP No.2680 of 2026
Suman Kumari. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
42. CWP No.2681 of 2026
Aishvarya. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
43. CWP No.2682 of 2026
Rita. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
44. CWP No.2683 of 2026
Hitender Kumar. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
45. CWP No.2684 of 2026
Anjana Bhaik. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-9-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
46. CWP No.2685 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
Prakash Chand. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
47. CWP No.2686 of 2026
Dheeraj Kumari. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
48. CWP No.2687 of 2026
Poonam. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
49. CWP No.2689 of 2026
Monika Thakur. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
50. CWP No.2690 of 2026
Darshan Dass. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
51. CWP No.2691 of 2026
Somprakash. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-10-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
52. CWP No.2692 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
Pratibha Bhaluni. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
53. CWP No.2693 of 2026
Shiv Raj. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
54. CWP No.2694 of 2026
Hoshiar Singh. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
55. CWP No.2695 of 2026
Virender Kumar. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
56. CWP No.2696 of 2026
Leela Devi. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
57. CWP No.2697 of 2026
Vijay Thakur. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-11-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
58. CWP No.2698 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
Shailja Kumari. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
59. CWP No.2699 of 2026
Bipa Verma. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
60. CWP No.2700 of 2026
Anita Thakur. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
61. CWP No.2701 of 2026
Anita Devi. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
62. CWP No.2702 of 2026
Sudarshan Kumar. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
63. CWP No.2703 of 2026
Ravi Sharma. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-12-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
Coram
High Court of H.P.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
_________________________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner(s). Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Devender K.
Sharma, Advocates for petitioner(s) in
respective petitions.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
Advocate General & Ms. Swati Draik,
Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondents-State, in all the petitions.
Ms. Ranjana, Advocate, vice Mr. Anil
Kumar, Advocate, for respondent, in CWP
No. 14482 of 2025.
_______________________________________________________
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Petitioners have approached this Court, seeking
following substantive reliefs:-
“i. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or Directions and the impugned
“Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Government Employees Act, 2024” may kindly be declared bad in
law and Ultra Vires to the Constitution of India, thus the same be
quashed and set-aside And/Or;
ii. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or Directions and the Respondents
may kindly be directed to count the entire services of the Petitioners
from the date of their initial appointments, with all consequential
benefits.
iii. In lieu of Relief No. 1 & 2, the Respondents may kindly be directed
to grant all benefits including financial arrears, seniority, increments,
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-13-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
continuity in the service for pay-scale/pay-grades and all other the
High Court of H.P.
consequential service benefits arising there from. And/or;
iv. In alternative to the Relief No. 2, the Respondents may kindly be
directed to count the contractual service of the Petitioners with
retrospective effect from 16.08.2023 OR 15.01.2015 to 01.04.2018,
for purpose of financial arrears, seniority, increments, continuity in
service for pay-scale/pay-grades and all other consequential service
benefits arising therefrom. And/or”
2. Admittedly, first issue involved in present case, regarding
validity, legality and constitutionality of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment
and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act
No. 23 of 2025) stands adjudicated and decided by a Coordinate
Division Bench in CWP No. 3361 of 2025, titled Devinder Kumar and
Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another with connected
matters, wherein it has been observed and held as under:-
“2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the
enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) (in
short ‘ Govt. Employees Act ’/the Act/the impugned Act).
3. In this common judgment, we are adjudicating only the
constitutionality, validity, and legality of the Govt. Employee Act. For other
reliefs, the consequences shall follow accordingly, and in case any further
relief(s) is/are required to be determined after adjudication of additional
facts, not discussed or adjudicated or covered in this judgment, the
petitioners shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies, including the
filing of fresh petitions for redressal of grievance based on such other
issues raised or not raised in these petitions.
…… …… ……
…...
202. Accordingly, in view of above discussion and considering the ratio
of law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned Act is quashed and set
aside.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-14-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
203. In view of quashing of the impugned Act, all consequential action,
High Court of H.P.
omission and commission of the respondents-State and its functionaries,
based on the impugned Act, are declared illegal, unconstitutional and
nullify, and resultantly orders/rejection/directions, withdrawal, denying
benefits or proposing recovery of already granted reliefs, based on the
impugned Act, in conflict with the mandate of the Court are also quashed
and set aside and competent authority(ies) is directed to ensure extension
of benefits to the employees in terms of judgments passed by the
competent Courts, latest by three months from today by issuing
appropriate orders, if so required, in consonance with the Constitutional
mandate and verdict of the Court(s).”
3. The findings returned in CWP No. 3361 of 2025 along
with connected matters, shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to
present matters, regarding this issue, for all intents and purposes.
4. For adjudication of other reliefs, i.e., relief Nos. 2 to 4, it
would be relevant to refer history of PTA Teachers from their
engagement till their regularization, after taking over their services by
converting PTA Teachers into contract teachers, which is as under:-
“A During the years 2006, 2007, and 2008, the respondent-Department
permitted the local Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) of the concerned
schools to engage PTA Teachers under the Parent Teacher Association
(Grant-in-Aid) Policy, 2006 . This policy was initiated as a stop-gap
arrangement to provide teachers to students against vacant posts of
concerned subjects, for want of appointment/posting of regular or contract
Teachers by the Department on such posts.
B. Vide Notification dated 16.08.2013, the Government of Himachal Pradesh
decided to take over the services of PTA Grant-in-Aid (GIA) provided
Teachers on a contract basis.
C. The said decision of the Government to convert PTA (GIA) teachers into
contract employees was challenged by one Pankaj Kumar by filing CWP
No.6916 of 2011-H titled as Pankaj Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. as well as
some other persons including Chander Mohan Negi.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-15-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
D. The High Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2014 decided CWP No. 6916 of
High Court of H.P.
2011 along with connected matters in favour of PTA (GIA) Contract Teachers
and accordingly, services of PTA (GIA) provided Teachers were taken over
on contract basis in the month of January, 2015.
E. Judgment dated 09.12.2014, passed in CWP No.6916 of 2011 and
connected matters, was further assailed before the Apex Court by filing SLP
No.1426 of 2015 titled as Pankaj Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and
other connected matters , wherein the Apex Court, vide order dated
22.01.2015, directed to maintain status quo till further orders to the contrary.
This SLP was converted into Civil Appeal No. 2812 of 2017. However, this
appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.3.2018.
F. Aforesaid judgment dated 09.12.2014, passed in CWP No.7728 of 2 013
(connected with CWP No.6916 of 2011), was also challenged by Kushal
Kumar and others before the Apex Court by filing SLP No. 1709 of 2015,
6644 of 2015 and 6090 of 2015, wherein also vide order dated 09.03.2015,
the Apex Court directed to maintain status quo till orders to the contrary.
G. SLP No.6644 of 2015, Chander Mohan Vs. State of H.P., SLP No.6090 of
2015, Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and SLP No.7709 of 2015, Kushal
Kumar Vs. State were converted into Civil Appeals bearing Civil Appeal
Nos.2813 of 2017, 2814 of 2017, and 2815 of 2017 respectively. These
appeals were dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 17.04.2020,
passed in the matter of Chander Mohan Negi v. State of H.P. and Others ,
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 732 (Civil Appeal No.2813 of 2017).
H. After dismissal of the aforementioned SLPs and Civil Appeals by the Apex
Court, the Government, vide communication dated 05.08.2020, conveyed its
approval to regularize services of the PTA GIA Teachers, whose services
were taken over on contract basis in January 2015, as well as those left-out
PTA GIA Teachers, whose services could not be taken over on contract basis
previously due to various administrative reasons including direction of the
Apex Court to maitnain status quo. In pursuance of aforesaid approval, and
after observing all codal formalities, regularization orders of the PTA GIA
provided Teachers, who were taken over on contract basis, were regularized
vide office order dated 20.08.2020, subject to the final outcome of CWP
No.2850 of 2020.
I. CWP No. 2850 of 2020 was disposed of on 23.7.2024 in terms of judgment
dated 27.11.2020 passed in CWP No. 2285 of 2020, whereby all connected
Writ Petitions were dismissed.
J. In 2018, in consonance with decision of the Government of Himachal
Pradesh, Department of Personnel, as communicated vide letter dated
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-16-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
11.05.2018, the services of Teachers appointed on contract basis were
High Court of H.P.
directed to be regularized on completion of three years of continuous
contractual service as on 31.03.2018.
K. PTA-GIA provided Teachers, whose services were taken over on contract
basis by the Department in the year 2015, could not be regularized after the
completion of three years of continuous service on contract basis during
2018. This was because the matter regarding appointment of PTA-GIA
provided Teachers was pending adjudication before the Apex Court, and an
interim order was in operation. Accordingly, as recorded supra , their services
were eventually regularized after decision in the Chander Mohan Negi’s case,
with effect from 20.08.2020.
L. Feeling aggrieved, the PTA-GIA Teachers filed CWP No.342 of 2021, titled
Yashwant Singh and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others and other
connected petitions , before this High Court, seeking regularization of their
services with effect from 01.04.2018, at par with the Teachers, who were
appointed in the Department through direct recruitment and had completed
three years of contractual service as on 31.03.2018.
M. CWP No.342 of 2021 along with connected matters was allowed vide
judgment dated 31.08.2022.
N. Assailing the judgment dated 31.08.2022, an SLP (C) No.6696 of 2023 was
filed by the State Government in the Apex Court, which was dismissed on
24.04.2023.
O. The petitioners in CWP No.342 of 2021 and in connected matters filed
Execution Petition No.86 of 2023 to execute orders dated 31.08.2022 and
24.04.2023 passed by this High Court and the Apex Court, respectively.
P. Vide communication dated 02.09.2023, the Government conveyed its
approval to regularize the services of the petitioners in CWP No.342 of 2021
and other clubbed petitions, as well as in Execution Petition No.86 of 2023,
with effect from 01.04.2018.
Q. In the aforesaid backdrop, vide office order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-
16), the petitioner, along with other similarly situated persons, were
regularized with effect from 01.04.2018, with all consequential benefits.”
5. Admittedly, initial appointment of petitioners as PTA
Teachers, as teacher was engaged by Parent Teacher Association of
the concerned school under Grant-in-aid to PTA Policy during the
year 2006-2007.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-17-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
6. Government of H.P. took a policy decision regarding
High Court of H.P.
taking over the services of PTA (GIA Rules, 2006),
converting/appointing these teachers on contract basis, after
completion of eight years as PTA Teacher, subject to observance of
terms and conditions, provided in Notification dated 16.08.2013, by
constituting a Screening Committee for recommending and taking
over of services of petitioners on contract basis by the concerned
appointing authority. PTA Teachers, not fulfilling the qualification,
prescribed under RTE Act as well as R&P Rules, were permitted to
achieve such qualification three years from the date of Notification.
7. In furtherance to aforesaid policy decision, as pleaded,
services of about 5017 PTA Teachers were taken over on contract
basis vide different office orders. Some orders were issued before
passing of order of status quo by the Apex Court on 22.01.2015,
whereas some orders were issued on vacation of status quo order on
passing of judgment dated 17.04.2020 passed by the Apex Court in
Chander Mohan Negi vs. State of H.P. , reported in (2020) 5 SCC
732 . Thereafer, process for regularization the services of PTA
Teachers converted to/taken over as contract Teacher was started.
Vide office order dated 05.08.2020, services of converted contract
Teachers, i.e., petitioners, who were engaged as PTA Teacher
between 29.06.2006 and 03.01.2008, were regularized with
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-18-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
prospectively from the date 20.08.2020, whereupon such teachers as
High Court of H.P.
petitioners approached the Court by filing CWP No. 342 of 2021, titled
as Yashwant & others vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein vide
judgment dated 31.08.2022, petitioners were held entitled for
regularization w.e.f. due date, i.e., 01.04.2018 with all consequential
benefits.
8. SLP No. 6966 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh
and Anr. vs. Yashwant Singh and Ors., preferred by the State against
the judgment dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-14), was dismissed by
the Apex Court, vide order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-15). Vide
office order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-16), State of H.P. complied
with judgment dated 31.08.2022 and regularized the services of
petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2018 with all consequential benefits.
9. There is a previous adjudication and verdict of the Court
in CWP No. 342 of 2021 and other connected matters, preferred by
the petitioners, which has attained finality and, therefore, service
benefits of the petitioners shall be governed and extended to them in
terms of the said mandate of the Court notwithstanding anything else.
10. Petitioners have already been extended benefit of
contract period of services in terms of their claim in CWP No. 342 of
2021 and other connected matters, which has attained finality on
dismissal of SLP preferred by the State and, therefore, the same
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-19-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
cannot be opened now. Initial appointment of the petitioners or their
High Court of H.P.
appointment on contract was not by following procedure prescribed in
R&P Rules, Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution and they were not subjected to rigors of the process, as
applicable for regular appointment by participating in completion open
to all eligible candidates and, therefore, they are not entitled for all
benefits of contract service from the date of initial appointment like
regular incumbents.
11. Claim of the petitioners regarding counting of
temporary/contract service, from a particular date, has already been
agitated and adjudicated in CWP No. 342 of 2021 , titled as Yashwant
& others vs. State of H.P. and others in the year 2021 and, thereafter,
petitioners were satisfied and now they have filed present petition,
which is not maintainable. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer
Provisions of Order 2 CPC, which reads as under:-
“ORDER II
FRAME OF SUIT
1. Frame of suit. —Every suit shall as far as practicable be
framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon the
subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning
them.
2. Suit to include the whole claim .—(1) Every suit shall
include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to
make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may
relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit
within the jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim .—Where a plaintiff omits
to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-20-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion
High Court of H.P.
so omitted or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs .—A person
entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of
action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits,
except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he
shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Explanation .—For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a
collateral security for its performance and successive claims
arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively
to constitute but one cause of action.”
12. Petitioners had preferred CWP No. 342 of 2021 in the
year 2021, agitating their regularization w.e.f. 20.08.2020 with claim
that they were entitled to be regularized from 01.04.2018, i.e., after
completion of three years after conversion/taking over their services
on contract basis from PTA Teachers. At that time, petitioners did not
claim for regularization or any other benefit from the date of their initial
appointment as PTA Teachers in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, but
they omitted to sue in respect of the claim of all benefits of the
services from the initial date of appointment. Therefore, petitioners, in
view of provisions of Order II, CPC, especially Rule (2) thereof, are
prohibited from filing petition for reliefs now claimed, particularly reliefs
ii to iv and, therefore, they are not entitled for these reliefs, on this
count also.
13. At the time of filing CWP No. 342 of 2021, petitioners
were regularized by the respondents from 20.08.2020. The cause of
action was that petitioners, according to them, were regularized from
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-21-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
a wrong date, whereas they were entitled to be regularized from
High Court of H.P.
earlier date and at that time they did not claim regularization or other
benefits from initial date of appointment, but they claimed benefit of
regularization on the basis of taking over/conversion of their services
from PTA Teachers to contract services on the basis of policy decision
taken by the State in the year 2014-2015. Omission on the part of
petitioners to sue for all claims including service benefits from the
initial date of appointment amounts to relinquishing the claim being
putforth in terms of reliefs No. (ii) to (iv) and, therefore, they are not
entitled to sue for these reliefs, so omitted at the time of filing CWP
No. 342 of 2021.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners to substantiate claim
of the petitioners to count their services as PTA appointees for
extending service benefits to the petitioners, has placed reliance on
judgment dated 15.06.2015, passed by a Division Bench of this Court
in CWP No. 8953 of 2013 along with connected writ petitions ,
titled Joga Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others , whereby it has been held that period from 2000 to 31.10.2007
and 22.11.2007 from their initial appointment as Gram Vidya Upasak
to the date of realization, shall be counted as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with further
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-22-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
direction that this period shall also be counted for the purpose of
High Court of H.P.
annual increments.
15. There is a basic difference between the initial
appointment of the petitioners as PTA Teachers and the appointment
of Vidya Upasaks under the Vidya Upasak Yojna. PTA appointees
were engaged on a stopgap basis without adhering to the provisions
of the R&P Rules and were appointed by the Local Parent Teacher
Association. The honorarium payable for hiring their services as PTA
Teachers was to be paid by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA),
whereas the Government only provided Grant-in-Aid to the PTA upon
an application submitted on its behalf. In contrast, Vidya Upasaks
were engaged under the Vidya Upasak Yojna after undergoing the
rigours of a prescribed selection process and possessing the
minimum eligibility qualifications for appointment against notified
vacant posts. Their appointments were made through the recruiting
agency on the basis of requisitions sent by the State Government for
selection against posts in the Education Department. Therefore, there
exists a substantial distinction between the two categories of
appointments, namely, Vidya Upasaks by Government/Deparment
and PTA Teachers appointed by PTA under the Grant-in-Aid Rules.
16. In Joga Singh’s case , petitioners were appointed by
Government/Department though as Vidya Upasaks, but on contract
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-23-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
and the said contract was renewed on the basis of instructions issued
High Court of H.P.
by the State Government from time to time. There was and is no
appointment by Government/Department or contract of the State
Government with PTA Teachers and they are paid fixed remuneration,
determined by PTA, which can never be said to be payment of pay to
the petitioners. Petitioners herein are not similarly situated to the
petitioners in Joga Singh’s case and, thus, findings returned in the
judgment of Joga Singh’s case are not applicable in present case and
petitioners are not entitled for any relief on the analogy of Vidya
Upasaks and, thus, judgment passed in Joga Singh’s case is of no
help to the petitioners.
17. In relief (ii), petitioners are claiming that their services
from the date of initial appointment as PTA Teachers are liable to be
counted for purpose of seniority, increment and continuity in service
for pay-scale, pay-grades and all other consequential service benefits,
arising therefrom in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in Direct
Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 , as well as judgment
dated 03.08.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Taj
Mohammad and others Vs. State of H.P . (Annexure P-17).
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon
pronouncement of the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-24-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and
High Court of H.P.
others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 , especially referring para 47(B) of the said
judgment. Relevant portion of Direct Recruit’s judgment in para 47,
reads as under:-
“ 47 . To sum up, we hold that:
(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 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 continues in the post
uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance
with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted”.
19. It has been contended that rights of the petitioners have
been protected in Direct Recruit’s case and in view of para 47(B),
petitioners are entitled for benefits of services rendered by them.
20. In Direct Recruit’s cas e, there was dispute between
direct recruits and promotees and for non availability of adequate
number of direct recruits, large number of promotees had to be
appointed to officiate as Deputy Engineers on continuous basis.
These appointments were given after following procedure applicable
to regular promotions including consultation with the Public Service
Commission.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-25-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
21. In this backdrop, in para 47(B), it was held that after
High Court of H.P.
such appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the
regularization of service in accordance with rules, the period of
officiating service will be counted. The verdict in Direct Recruit’s case
is not to be read and applied in isolation. Direction in para 47(B) has
to be read with direction contained in para 47(A). In present case,
petitioners were not appointed by following the procedure laid down
by the rules, but their appointments did not continue uninterruptedly
till regularization of their services in accordance with rules.
22. In fact petitioners as PTA Teachers were engaged at
local level by PTA and they were not appointed by the Government
and services of petitioners were not regularized uninterruptedly from
PTA appointees to regular teachers. There is no policy or policy
decision to appoint PTA Teachers by the Government and to
regularize services of PTA Teachers, but there is conversion in taking
over of the services of PTA Teachers as contract teachers from a
particular date. Conversion as a contract teacher is also not a regular
appointment and on reading paras 47(A) and 47(B) of Direct Recruits’
case conjointly, it is apparent that services rendered by the petitioners
as PTA Teachers were and are not being followed by regularization of
their services in accordance with rules, rather again their services
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-26-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
have been converted into contract, which is again not a permanent
High Court of H.P.
establishment or pensionable establishment.
23. From the above discussion, it is apparent that in present
case, Direct Recruit’s case is not applicable, rather ratio of findings
returned by the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit’s case establishes
counter to the case propounded by the petitioners.
24. Admittedly, initial appointments of petitioners were not in
consonance with the procedure prescribed under R&P Rules for
appointment to the post, by which they were engaged for short term
as a stop gap arrangement to provide teachers to the local schools for
instant requirement on account of vacancy of the post for non
appointment of regular Teachers in the school and policy decision to
take over/convert their services on contract basis was taken in 2014
and their services were converted into and taken over as contract
employees of the State in terms of decision in December,
2014/January, 2015.
25. Therefore, case of petitioners is not similar to the Direct
Recruit’s case as well as Taj Mohammad’s case, wherein petitioners
were appointed by following the procedure prescribed for recruitment
on regular basis in terms of R&P Rules by advertising the posts
inviting applications for participating in competition open to all eligible
candidates. Thus, plea that case of the petitioners is covered under
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-27-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
Direct Recruit and Taj Mohammad’s cases is misconceived. They are
High Court of H.P.
not similar situated to petitioners therein and, therefore, for counting
their entire service from the date of initial appointments for all
consequential benefits is not sustainable and, accordingly rejected.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed
reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in G.P. Doval and others vs.
Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and others, reported in
(1984) 4 SCC 329 , by referring para 15 thereof with submission that if
first appointment is made by competent authority, then even if the
procedure was irregular (but not illegal), the subsequent regularization
makes the entire period to be counted for extending benefits, as has
been held by the Supreme Court in para 47(B) in Direct Recruit’s
case.
27. In G.P. Doval’s case , Khandsari Inspectors were
engaged by the State Government under Khandsari Licensing
Scheme to regulate the supply of sugarcane to sugar factories. Posts
of Khandsari Inspectors, initially designated as Licensing Inspectors,
were created and some persons were appointed as Khandsari
Inspectors between March and May, 1960. Thereafter, some
Khandsari Inspectors were recruited and some others who were
recruited departmentally were approved by Public Service
Commission. At the time of appointment of Khandsari Inspectors in
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-28-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
1958-59, there were no R&P Rules in existence and, accordingly,
High Court of H.P.
under Khandsari Licensing Scheme, Khandsari Inspectors were
recruited. Later on, with the help and guidance of Public Service
Commission, Khandsari Inspectors were recruited. There was a
dispute with respect to seniority for consideration of these Khandsari
Inspectors to the posts of Khandsari Officer and Assistant Sugar
Commissioner. The relevant rules applicable in the said case provided
the detail for guidelines for determining the seniority as referred in
para 8 of G.P. Doval’s judgment. Relevant portion whereof is as
under:-
“2. Among other things the rules should provide for the following matters.
At Item No. 11, seniority is mentioned. Elaborating how the rule about
seniority should be drawn-up, the memorandum proceeds to prescribe
guidelines as under:
"Seniority in service shall generally be determined from the date of
substantive appointment to a service, or from the date of the order of first
appointment, if such appointment is followed by confirmation. In special
cases seniority may be determined in accordance with the conditions
which may suit a particular service."
28. Findings in G.P. Doval’s case were returned in the
aforesaid backdrop, which is not similar to present case, especially
regarding claim of the petitioners and, therefore, this judgment is not
applicable in present case.
29. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed
reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in L. Chandrakishore Singh
vs. State of Manipur and others along with connected matters ,
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-29-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
reported in (1999) 8 SCC 287 by referring paras 14 and 15 thereof
High Court of H.P.
with reference to para 47(B) of Direct Recruit’s case.
30. In this case also, certain persons had joined Manipur
Police as Sub Inspectors on the recommendation of Manipur Public
Service Commission, who were confirmed on 16.06.1976. On
03.06.1980, Government of Manipur appointed 31 Sub-Inspectors of
Police as Inspectors of Police on promotion on regular basis until
further orders. The Government of Manipur exercising the power
conferred in MPS Rules, 1965 appointed other persons in order of
their merit to Manipur Police Service in officiating capacity with
immediate effect. On recommendation of DPC held on 14.01.1985,
appellant and others were confirmed as Inspectors of Police of
Manipur Police Department w.e.f. 14.01.1985. However, vide order
dated 16.08.1989, the persons confirmed on 14.01.1985 were shown
junior to the appointees engaged after 14.01.1985.
31. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
observations made and findings returned by the Supreme Court in
paras 14 and 15 of L. Chandrakishore Singh’s case are not applicable
to the facts of present case.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Sain and
others vs. Union of India and others , reported in (2000) 8 Supreme
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-30-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
Court Cases 25 by referring paras 16 to 21 thereof, which read as
High Court of H.P.
under:-
“16. The three terms “ad hoc”, “stopgap” and “fortuitous” are in frequent
use in service jurisprudence. In the absence of definition of these
terms in the rules in question we have to look to the dictionary
meaning of the words and the meaning commonly assigned to them
in service matters. The meaning given to the expression “fortuitous”
in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary is “accident or fortuitous casualty”.
This should obviously connote that if an appointment is made
accidentally, because of a particular emergent situation and such
appointment obviously would not continue for a fairly long period.
But an appointment made either under Rule 16 or 17 of the
Recruitment Rules, after due consultation with the High Court and
the appointee possesses the prescribed qualification for such
appointment provided in Rule 7 and continues as such for a fairly
long period, then the same cannot be held to “fortuitous”. In Black’s
Law Dictionary , the expression “fortuitous” means “occurring by
chance”, “a fortuitous event may be highly unfortunate”. It thus,
indicates that it occurs only by chance or accident, which could not
have been reasonably foreseen. The expression “ad hoc” in Black’s
Law Dictionary , means “something which is formed for a particular
purpose”. The expression “stopgap” as per Oxford Dictionary,
means “a temporary way of dealing with a problem or satisfying a
need”.
17. In Oxford Dictionary , the word “ad hoc” means for a particular
purpose; specially. In the same Dictionary, the word “fortuitous”
means happening by accident or chance rather than design.
18. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon (2nd Edn.) the word “ad hoc”
is described as: “For particular purpose. Made, established, acting
or concerned with a particular (sic) and or purpose.” The meaning of
word “fortuitous event” is given as “an event which happens by a
cause which we cannot resist; one which is unforeseen and caused
by superior force, which it is impossible to resist; a term
synonymous with Act of God”.
19. The meaning to be assigned to these terms while interpreting
provisions of a Service Rule will depend on the provisions of that
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-31-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
Rule and the context in and the purpose for which the expressions
High Court of H.P.
are used. The meaning of any of these terms in the context of
computation of inter-se seniority of officers holding cadre post will
depend on the facts and circumstances in which the appointment
came to be made. For that purpose it will be necessary to look into
the purpose for which the post was created and the nature of the
appointment of the officer as stated in the appointment order. If the
appointment order itself indicates that the post is created to meet a
particular temporary contingency and for a period specified in the
order, then the appointment to such a post can be aptly described
as “ad hoc” or “stopgap”. If a post is created to meet a situation
which has suddenly arisen on account of happening of some event
of a temporary nature then the appointment of such a post can aptly
be described as “fortuitous” in nature. If an appointment is made to
meet the contingency arising on account of delay in completing the
process of regular recruitment to the post due to any reason and it
is not possible to leave the post vacant till then, and to meet this
contingency an appointment is made then it can appropriately be
called as a “stopgap” arrangement and appointment in the post as
“ad hoc” appointment. It is not possible to lay down any straight-
jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of circumstances and
situation in which such an appointment (ad hoc, fortuitous or
stopgap) can be made. As such, this discussion is not intended to
enumerate the circumstances or situations in which appointments of
officers can be said to come within the scope of any of these terms.
It is only to indicate how the matter should be approached while
dealing with the question of inter se seniority of officers in the cadre.
20. In the Service Jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite
qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is
appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate
authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such
appointment cannot be held to be “stopgap or fortuitous or purely ad
hoc”. In this view of the matter, the reasoning and basis on which,
the appointment of the promotees in the Delhi Higher Judicial
Service in the case in hand was held by the High Court to be
“fortuitous/ad hoc/stopgap” are wholly erroneous and, therefore,
exclusion of those appointees to have their continuous length of
service for seniority is erroneous.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-32-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
21. In view of our conclusions, as aforesaid, we quash the seniority list
High Court of H.P.
both provisional and final, so far as, it relates to the appointees
either by direct recruitment or by promotion in the Delhi Higher
Judicial Service, prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules in
the year 1987, and their inter se seniority must be re- determined on
the basis of continuous length of service in the Cadre, as indicated
in Singla’s case and explained by us in this judgment. Since the
future of these officers to a great extent depends upon seniority and
many of these officers may be on the verge of superannuation, the
High Court would do well in finalising the seniority within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.”
33. In aforesaid judgment, it was held by the Supreme Court
that appointment of certain Judicial Officers, denied benefits of
seniority and service benefits, cannot be held to be stopgap or
fortuitous or purely ad hoc basis and, therefore, it was held that
exclusion of such appointees to have their continuous length of
service for seniority was erroneous. In present case, admittedly PTA
appointments were stopgap, which was purely on ad hoc , liable to be
terminated on joining regular at any point of time, but were not
appointed by Government/Department, but Parent Teachers
Association (PTA) and thus, this judgment is also not applicable on
given facts and circumstances of present case.
34. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred
pronouncement of Division Bench of this High Court in Baldev Singh
& Ors. vs. State of H.P. and Ors along with connected matters ,
reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293 . These petitions were disposed
of with following findings:-
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-33-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
“16. In view of the above discussion, we dispose of the writ petitions by
High Court of H.P.
summarizing our findings as follows:
i) that the State should normally not make any appointment
without following the R & P rules;
ii) that in a situation where the Sate or its instrumentalities are
forced to make public employment without following the R &P
rules, we recommend that the approval of the Administrative
Secretary not below the rank of Principal Secretary should
normally be obtained after given complete reasons, in respect
of each post, as to why the post could not be filled up by
following the R & P rules;
iii) that the appointees on contract basis are to be treated at par
with the ad hoc appointees;
iv) that this court has no power to direct the State to regularize the
services of any employee appointed without following the R & P
rules;
v) that this court cannot direct the State to frame a policy of
regularization; and
vi) that the State must follow the principle of ‘last come first go’ as
enumerated above vis-à-vis the employees who are appointed
de hors the rules.
vii) that normally the State should not regularize the employees
appointed without following the rules since this adversely
affects the rights of many eligible candidates.”
35. From the aforesaid findings, petitioners are not getting
anything, rather these findings go against the petitioners, which direct
not to make appointments without following R&P Rules, but to adhere
to the rules. The observation that appointees engaged on contract are
to be treated as ad hoc appointees, was rendered in facts and
circumstances of Baldev Singh's case. In that case, both ad hoc and
contract appointees had been engaged or appointed by, or on behalf
of the State Government, whereas in present case, however, PTA
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-34-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
Teachers were engaged by the Parent-Teacher Association in its
High Court of H.P.
independent capacity and on its own behalf, and not by or on behalf
of the State Government. Therefore, the said judgment is also of no
help to the petitioners.
36. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to persuade the
Court to grant relief to the petitioners, have also placed heavy reliance
on the judgment dated 07.10.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge
of this High Court in CWP No. 10783 of 2024, titled Lalit Sen vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others , whereby a person similarly
situated to the present petitioners, who was initially engaged as a PTA
Teacher on 02.06.2007 and whose services were subsequently taken
over/converted into contractual service on 20.08.2015 and thereafter
regularized in August, 2020, was held entitled to the counting of the
service rendered by him in temporary, contractual and regular
capacities before superannuation for counting pensionary benefits.
37. For discussion hereinafter, we are of the opinion that
judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, does not lay down
correct law.
38. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer certain
provisions of Grant-in-Aid to Parents Teacher Associations Rules,
2006:-
“GRANT-IN-AID TO PARENTS TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS RULES, 2006
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-35-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
1. Short Title & Commencement.- These rules may be called “Grant-
High Court of H.P.
in-aid to Parents Teacher Associations Rules, 2006”. They shall
come into force with immediate effect.
2. Definitions.- In these Rules unless there is anything repugnant to
the subject in the context:-
(a) …. …. …. ….
(b) …. …. …. ….
(c) …. …. …. ….
(d) “PTA” means a duly constituted Parents Teachers’ Association or a
Students’ Welfare Fund in a Government college/school/training
institute.
3. Extent of Application.- The provisions of these Rules shall be
applicable to determine the eligibility and the quantum of grant-in-
aid and release thereof to PTAs who make available teachers to
an educational institution for the purpose of imparting education to
its students.
4. Sole discretion of Government.- Government, at its sole discretion,
may give grant-in-aid to PTAs on such terms and conditions it
considers appropriate.
5. Application for Grant-in-Aid- In case a PTA, with the prior approval
of the Principal, makes available teachers for the regular day to
day teaching of students in an educational institution, it may submit
an application for grant-in-aid in Form-L Character/antecedents of
such teachers vended by a Gazetted Government office should be
enclosed with the application. Further, the request for grant in
respect of teachers provided, should be accompanied by a
certificate from the Principal of the education institution to the
effect that the work and conduct of die teachers was satisfactory.
In case the educational institution does not have a regular
Principal, the request for grant should be accompanied by
certificates from the teacher of the institution carrying out the
functions of Principal.
6. Limit to grant.- The number of teachers in a subject in respect of
whom grant may be given shall not exceed the number of posts in
the subject which are vacant in an educational institution.
7. Education Qualifications. - Grant-in-aid to a PTA shall not be
admissible in respect of a teacher made available by it who does
not fulfill the educational qualifications fixed by the Government in
respect of posts under it for teaching the same subjects/classes.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-36-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
8. Quantum of Grant-in-aid- The amount of grant to a PTA in respect
High Court of H.P.
of a teach shall not exceed 50% of the amount of the initial basic
salary plus dearness pay, which a similar teacher employed by the
Government receives per month. In case die teacher is made
available or works for a period less than one month, the grant shall
be reduced prorata.
Provided that the amount of grant-in-aid in respect of a teacher
shall not exceed the amount actually paid by the PTA to the
teacher.”
39. In Lalit Sen’s case, petitioner therein had relied upon
Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, whereas learned Single
Judge in para 8 of the judgment has referred Rule 13 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 2021.
Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads as under:
“ 13. Commencement of qualifying service
Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a
Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge
of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an
officiating or temporary capacity:
Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without
interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another
service or post:
Provided further that -
(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group ‘D’ service or
post who hold a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent
th
personable post prior to the 17 April, 1950, service rendered
before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for
any purpose, and
(b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by Clause
(a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen
years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.
(c) the provisions of Clause (b) shall not be applicable in the
cases of counting of military service for civil pension under
Rule 19.”
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-37-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
40. Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 reads as under:-
High Court of H.P.
“ 13. Service in State Governments
(1) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State
Government, who was initially appointed in a pensionable
establishment of the State Government on or before 31st
December, 2003 and who is permanently transferred to a service or
post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered
under the State Government in an officiating or temporary or
substantive capacity shall qualify:
Provided that continuous service rendered under that Government
in an officiating or temporary capacity shall qualify if that service is
followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the
State Government or the Central Government.
(2) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State
Government who is appointed with proper permission to a service
or post to which these rules apply after acceptance of his
resignation from the service of State Government, the continuous
service rendered under the State Government in an officiating or
temporary or substantive capacity shall qualify, subject to the
condition that the service rendered under that Government in an
officiating or temporary capacity is followed without interruption by
substantive appointment in the State Government or the Central
Government.
Explanation.- A Government servant shall be deemed to have been
appointed in the Government with proper permission if he had
applied for the service or post in the Government with previous
permission of the State Government and the order of the State
Government clearly indicates that the employee is resigning to join
the post in the Government with proper permission of the State
Government.
(3) The liability for pension and gratuity in cases covered under sub-
rule (1) and sub-rule (2) shall be borne by the Central Government
and no recovery of proportionate pension shall be made from the
State Government.”
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-38-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
41. Undisputedly, for adjudication of claim of Lalit Sen as
High Court of H.P.
well as present petitioners, relevant Rule would be Rule 13 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
42. Before discussing provisions of these Rules and
applicability thereof to Lalit Sen or present petitioners and to
understand the appointment in ‘substantive capacity’, it would be
relevant to refer following paras of pronouncement of the Apex Court
in Baleshwar Dass and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in (1980) 4 SCC 226 , which read as under:-
“31. What, in the context, is a substantive capacity vis-a-vis an appointment to a
post? In our view, the emphasis imparted by the adjective "substantive" is
that a thing is substantive if it is "an essential part or constituent or relating
to what is essential". We may describe a capacity as substantive if it has
"independent existence" or is of "considerable amount or quantity". What is
independent in a substantial measure may reasonably be described as
substantive. Therefore, when a post is vacant, however designated in
officialese, the capacity in which the person holds the post has to be
ascertained by the State. Substantive capacity refers to the capacity in
which a person holds the post and not necessarily to the nature or
character of the post. To approximate to the official diction used in this
connection, we may well say that a person is said to hold a post in a
substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of
long duration in contradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite or
temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation.
32. Once we understand 'substantive capacity' in the above sense, we may be
able to rationalise the situation. If the appointment is to a post and the
capacity in which the appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if the
Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if the
tests prescribed have been taken and passed, if probation has been
prescribed and has been approved, one may well say that the post was
held by the incumbent in a substantive capacity.”
43. Para 13 of judgment of the Apex Court in Director
General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-39-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
another vs. Magi H. Desai , reported in (2023) 18 SCC 705 , is also
High Court of H.P.
relevant to be referred, which reads as under:-
“7. Rule 13 of the 1972 Rules provides for commencement of qualifying
service. As per Rule 13, qualifying service of a Government servant
shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which
he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or
temporary capacity. It further provides that such officiating or
temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive
appointment in the same or another service or post. Therefore, the
services rendered on a substantive post or services rendered as
officiating or temporary service shall be treated as qualifying
service. Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to
be officiating or temporary service. Even the services rendered as
temporary service can be considered as qualifying service provided
that the officiating or temporary service is followed without
interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another
service or post. Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be
said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment.”
44. Certain provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary
Services) Rules, 1965 would also be helpful to understand the
meaning of Temporary Service or Officiating Service, which are as
under:-
“1. Short, title commencement and application. - (1) These rules may
be called the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
1965.
(2) …. …. …. ….
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), these rules shall
apply to all persons:-
(i) who hold a civil post including all civilians paid from the
Defence Services Estimates under the Government of
India and who are under the rule-making control of the
President, but who do not hold a lien or a suspended lien
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-40-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
on any post under the Government of India or any State
High Court of H.P.
Government;
(ii) who are employed temporarily in work-charged
establishments and who have opted for pensionary
benefits.
(4) Nothing in these rules shall apply to,-
(a) …. …. …. ….
(b) …. …. …. ….
(c) Government servants engaged on contract;
(d) …. …. …. ….
(e) Persons employed in extra-temporary establishments or
in work-charged establishments (other than the persons
employed temporarily and who have opted for
pensionary benefits);
2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "appointing authority" means, in relation to a specified
post, the authority declared as such under the Central
Civil Services (C.C.S.) Rules, 1965;
(b) …. …. …. ….
(c) …. …. …. ….
(d) "temporary service" means the service of a temporary
Government Servant in a temporary post or officiating
service in a permanent post, under the Government of
India.”
45. Meaning of Government Employee, in general, is an
individual hired or paid by Local, State or Central (National)
Government to administer public policies, private service and to
maintain operations of the administration, which is distinct from
elected official and political appointees as well as persons engaged by
an entity, which does not fall in the category of Local, State or Central
Government.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-41-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
46. Pensionable establishment is a designated category of
High Court of H.P.
Government Employees for guaranteed post retiral pension, gratuity
etc. wholly funded directly by the employer.
47. For want of adoption by the State Government of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 2021, applicability of these Rules in State of
Himachal Pradesh is doubtful. However, as the learned Single Judge
has relied upon provisions of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021
for directing the respondents to extend benefits of service rendered by
the petitioner on PTA for counting qualifying service for pension, we
are also discussing the scope of provisions of Rule 13 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 2021.
48. First condition for invoking provisions of this Rule is that
a Government servant belonging to the State Government should be
permanently transferred to service or post, to which CCS (Pension)
Rules, 2021 apply. PTA Teachers or Contract Employee of the State
Government , in present case, have not been transferred permanently
or temporarily to the Central Government or to service or post to
which CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 apply. The employee so transferred
should be initially appointed in a pensionable establishment of the
State Government on or before 31.12.2003. This condition is also not
present in case of PTA/Contract Teachers.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-42-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
49. In present case, neither PTA nor contractual
High Court of H.P.
appointment is an appointment in a pensionable establishment of the
State Government before regularization. In absence of regularization,
a person engaged on PTA basis or on contract shall not be entitled for
any pension on superannuation or expiry of term of PTA engagement
or contract appointment. Further, petitioners herein as well as
petitioner Lalit Sen in CWP No. 10783 of 2024 were not appointed on
or before 31.12.2003, rather all of them were appointed after 2003,
i.e., after 2006 onwards. After engagement as PTA Teachers, services
of petitioners were not permanently or otherwise transferred to the
post to which CCS (Pension) Rules apply, as CCS (Pension) Rules,
do not apply to contract appointees during their service as contract
appointee. Though, contract appointee, on or after regularization shall
have a right for counting their contract services towards pensionary
benefits, as provided in Rule 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, but
that situation arises on transfer of contract appointee or regularization
of his contract service, without interruption to the regular
establishment/post. Therefore, conversion or taking over of service of
petitioners from PTA engaged Teacher to contract appointee does not
fulfill the condition of substantive appointment in the State
Government or Central Government of a PTA Teacher without
interruption to regular establishment. A casual or contract appointment
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-43-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
is not a substantive appointment as has been held by Supreme Court
High Court of H.P.
in Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti’s case referred supra .
50. Though, for want of material and information placed on
record applicability of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 is doubtful,
however, even if these rules are considered to be applicable, the
claim of petitioners including claim of Lalit Sen in CWP No. 10783 of
2024 is not covered under Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
51. Case of the petitioners is also not covered under Rule 13
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as it provides that subject to
provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government Servant
shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he
is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary
capacity, provided that officiating or temporary service is followed
without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or
another service or post and also subject to other conditions
enumerated in second proviso.
52. PTA appointee is not a Government Servant, taking
charge of the post in a capacity of a Government Employee. Even
after engagement as PTA Teachers, he does not take charge of the
post against which he is engaged as a short term arrangement to
make teacher available in absence of regularly appointed teacher.
This Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 refers appointment in an
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-44-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
officiating or temporary capacity. There are rules dealing with
High Court of H.P.
temporary service called as Central Civil Services (Temporary
Services) Rules, 1965.
53. From the relevant provisions of Central Civil Services
(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 extracted here-in-before, it is
apparent that the Temporary Service Rules do not apply to
Government servant engaged on contract as well as persons
employed in extra-temporary establishments and for appointment in
temporary service, the appointing authority shall be the authority
declared as such under Central Civil Services (Temporary Services)
Rules, 1965. Further, that temporary service means temporary
Government servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a
permanent post.
54. In present case, PTA Teachers were engaged by Parent
Teacher Association. They were not appointed by appointing authority,
i.e., Director of School Education/Secretary, Education to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh, but were appointed by PTA
committees and, therefore, their services cannot be considered as
temporary services or officiating services either under Central Civil
Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 or CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, especially as a person appointed in an officiating or temporary
capacity as PTA Teacher.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-45-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
55. Further, in terms of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
High Court of H.P.
1972 also, temporary/officiating service must be followed without
interruption of substantive appointment in the same or another service
or post, but in present case even if for argument sake PTA
engagement is considered as a temporary service under the State,
which infact is not, then also their PTA engagement is not followed by
substantive appointment without interruption, because their services
were taken over or converted into contract, which again a temporary
establishment, but not a pensionable establishment, and appointment
as contract appointee, as also held in Director General,
Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and another vs.
Magi H. Desai , reported in (2023) 18 SCC 705 , is not a substantive
appointment. Therefore, PTA’s engagements has not been followed
by substantive appointment without interruption, rather between PTA
engagement and regularization there is a period of contract service,
which is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits in terms of Rule
17 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
56. Grant-in-Aid Rules to Parent Teacher Association are
evidently rules framed to give Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher
Association, so as to enable PTA to make monthly honorarium to the
person engaged on PTA basis to teach the children in the school and
vacancy of post to a particular subject since long.
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-46-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
57. As PTA Teachers alike contract employees, are not
High Court of H.P.
engaged by the Government, but were and are being engaged by
Parent Teacher Association, after seeking permission, through
Principal, from the competent authority.
58. Perusal of Grant-in-Aid Rules indicate that PTA Teachers
are neither Government employees nor paid any salary/pay by the
Government, rather they are engaged by PTA during vacancy of the
post to teach children in emergent situation, but amount is paid by
PTA to the teacher and PTAs are compensated by the Government by
issuing Grant-in-Aid in terms of Grant-in-Aid Rules. PTA Teachers are
neither temporary employee nor they are officiating service of the
State.
59. PTA Teacher does not take charge of the post. He is not
appointed as a temporary or officiating teacher, but is permitted to
enter in the school to teach students, by the Principal, on request
made by PTA.
60. Conversion or taking over of PTA engagement as
contract appointee is not an instance of temporary service followed by
substantive appointment without interruption. It is also apt to record
that even contract appointment is not a pensionary establishment,
however, as already referred supra , contract appointees may be
entitled for pensionary benefits for their substantive
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-47-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
appointment/regularization in terms of Rule 17 of CCS (Pension)
High Court of H.P.
Rules, 1972, but after regularization.,
61. With respect to PTA engaged person, appointing
authority is Parent Teacher Association but not the Director or
Secretary, Education. The services of PTA engaged Teachers are not
covered under definition of Temporary Employee or Officiating Service
under Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
62. Joga Singh’s case has also been referred by learned
Single Judge to issue direction to the respondents to count PTA
engagement for determining pensionary benefits. The facts in Joga
Singh’s case are entirely different and distinct from the present case.
As already discussed in detail here-in-above, in that case, petitioners
were directly appointed on contract basis and by referring Rule 17 of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were held entitled for pensionary benefits
on regularization as their contract service was followed by
regularization without interruption on the same post.
63. In view of above discussion, we hold that for want of
proper assistance, as relevant provisions were not referred to before
learned Single Judge, an error has been committed by learned Single
Judge by holding that in view of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972/2021, PTA engaged Teachers converted to contract appointee,
on regularization as contract appointee, are entitled for counting of
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS

-48-
2026:HHC:30534
CWP No. 11546 of 2026 & Connected matters
their temporary service as PTA engaged Teachers for calculating
High Court of H.P.
pensionary benefits and, therefore, this judgment has to be ignored,
as it does not depict the correct view on the issue involved.
64. In view of above discussion, pronouncements in Lalit
Sen’s case, Joga Singh’s case and other judgments referred by
learned counsel for the petitioners, discussed supra , are of no help to
the petitioners.
65. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that petitioners are not entitled for reliefs claimed under prayer
clause (ii) to (iv) and the same are dismissed accordingly.
66. So far as relief in prayer clause (i) is concerned, the
same already has been adjudicated as referred supra in CWP No.
3361 of 2025. In present petitions with respect to prayer (i) is also
disposed of in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 3361 of 2025,
however, with respect to prayer Nos. (ii) to (iv), petitions are
dismissed.
67. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of in terms of
aforesaid findings on the issues involved.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
rd
23 July, 2026 (Susheel)
::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2026 17:07:14 :::CIS