Contractual Service To Be Counted For Seniority And Annual Increments: Himachal Pradesh Court
Shreya Shekhar
4 Oct 2024 10:49 AM IST
On 27th September, Justice Bipin Chander Negi considered a case where petitioners approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court a case seeking counting of their contract service for the purpose of annual increment, seniority and consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment(s).
Background facts
The petitioners here were appointed as Junior Office Assistant (IT) in the Office of Labour Commissioner-cum-Director of Employment (HP) on a contract basis as per the terms and conditions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (“R & P Rules”) applicable to the recruitment for the said post. Services of the petitioners were regularized after completion of requisite years continuous contractual service, in accordance with the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh. On regularization, petitioners were placed at the minimum of the time scale of the post.
Though on contract basis, the initial recruitment of the petitioners against the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT), was made following procedure through open competition, prescribed under R & P Rules framed by the Department, under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The process was undertaken by the prescribed recruitment agency i.e., the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board and the petitioners were selected on the basis of merit and recommended to the Department.
It was argued by the petitioners that no justifiable reason was available on record for not offering regular appointment at initial stage, despite availability of sanctioned posts. They alleged that an exploitative policy of contract appointment for initial five years is being followed to avoid their liability to pay salary attached to the post and thus, deprive the employees from lawful service benefits available to them.
Further, the petitioners highlighted that the omissions and commissions on the part of the State are arbitrary and are antithesis the mandates of Article 14 of the Constitution. State must be a model Employer and protector of rights of people and thus, cannot be permitted to act as an exploitative master by devising a method under the garb of provisions of R & P Rules and providing contractual appointment at initial stage but depriving service benefits.
Findings of the Court
The Single Bench of Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that the claim of petitioners for counting their contract service is squarely covered in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P and the judgments relied therein. Therefore, the reasons and the grounds assigned for deciding that case must be applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case.
Judgments passed by Supreme Court and various Benches of the HP High Court such as Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others were also considered relevant as it held been held in many cases that contract service shall be counted for the purpose of annual increment and pensionary benefits. Especially considering that the petitioners herein are on better footing than the petitioners in those petitions as they were appointed according to the prescribed procedure provided under R & P Rules while Petitioners in those petitions were appointed by following the Policy adopted by the State, but dehors the R & P Rules.
The bench, thus, dismissed and allowed the petition, holding that the petitioners are entitled for counting their services from date of initial appointments on contract basis for the purpose of seniority and all consequential benefits as initial appointments of the petitioners on contract basis after following a procedure prescribed in R & P Rules. The petitioners were also held to be entitled for counting the said contract service for the purposes of granting annual increments and consequential benefits.
Further, direction was issued to the respondents to undertake entire exercise and extend consequential benefits to the petitioners on or before 31st March, 2025 and the payment of arrears of monetary benefits to be disbursed by the respondents in terms of instructions of Finance Department.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Case Title: Sumeet Kumar & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
