CWP/16584/2024 on 31 December 2024

2024:HHC:16903 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16584 of 2024

Decided on: 31st December, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yash Mahajan and others

…..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and others

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate vice

Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) By an appropriate writ and order, quash and set aside the impugned observation made in notification dated 05.08.2020 (Annexure P-8) to the effect that ‘as the Hon’ble Courts have not specified anything in its decisions regarding the date from which regularization of teachers is to be done, as such regularization of these teachers is given with prospective effect’ and further from the regularization orders the same being part of the respective regularization orders.

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 19:25:55 :::CIS

2 2024:HHC:16903

(b) By an appropriate writ or order, direct the Respondents to regularize services of Petitioners, with retrospective effect from the date of initial appointment or w.e.f. the Year 2014 i.e. when the similar situated GVU teachers were regularized or w.e.f. December, 2014 in terms the legal mandate of this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.3280 of 2022 dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-11), from due date with all consequential benefits including the financial arrears.”

3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petition.

4.

Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 31, 2024

Judge Mukesh

High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 19:25:55 :::CIS