Ms. Sushma Rani v. State of H.P. and Others

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 3, respectively.

2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate.

3. Respondents issued office order dated 15.10.2025, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s case in light of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Act, 2024. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs: “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned office order dated 15-10-2025 (Annexure P-8) may kindly be quashed & set aside. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the entire contractual service rendered by the petitioner followed by regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits. iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to release entire arrears of pension along with other consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner from the date she actually became eligible.”

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s case against the impugned order is covered under the judgment dated 18.12.2025, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.9084 of 2023, titled as Ravinder Singh Rana Vs. State of H.P. & Ors, along with connected matters. Relevant Paras of afore judgment reads as under: “The only grievance of the petitioners that has been highlighted at this stage is centered towards counting the contractual service rendered by them, followed by regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of ‘pension’. This relief has been claimed in light of law laid down in State of H.P. & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi. The aforesaid decision was followed in S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. etc. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. 3

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also invited attention to a decision rendered in Ram Chand & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby, the petitioners/ appellants (therein) were held entitled to count their contractual service for purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with consequential benefits, but restricting the actual consequential benefits for three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “39. Accordingly, judgment passed by learned Single Judge is modified with observation that reasoning assigned for deciding CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, shall be Mutatis mutandi applicable to the present matter also and appellants shall be entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with all consequential benefits, but restricting actual consequential financial/benefits to three years prior to filing of the writ petition.

40. Due and admissible benefits shall be released to the appellants within a period of four months from today. Needless (to say that benefits given beyond three years prior to filing of writ petitions shall be extended to them on notional basis.” The aforesaid decision was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ram Chand and Ors.2, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated

04.04.2025 stayed the impugned directions insofar as they related for counting the contractual service for grant of annual increments. Impugned directions for counting contractual service for the purpose pension, however, were not stayed. The order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reads as under:- “Delay Condoned. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, the direction passed by the High Court in the impugned order to count increments shall remain stayed.” 2 SLP(C) Diary No(s). 8008/2025 4 Similar interim orders have been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in large number of Special Leave Petitions (Civil) preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh in such like matters.

3. In view of above, at this stage, learned Advocate General submits that the respondents-State shall proceed for considering the cases of the petitioners for grant of pension by computing the contractual service rendered by them as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in light of Sheela Devi5 subject to petitioners’ furnishing fresh options in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today, whereafter all consequential action based upon law laid down in Sheela Devi5 shall follow.

4. In view of above submission made by learned Advocate General, the impugned orders passed in the individual cases contrary to above submissions and position of law, are set-aside. Contractual service rendered by the petitioners followed by regularization be computed as qualifying service for purpose of pension in accordance with Sheela Devi5 & Ram Chand8. This exercise be completed within three months from today. Petitioners shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, at an appropriate stage for the redressal of their surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law, in case necessity so arises in future. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”

4. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for counting contractual service rendered by her towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension afresh in accordance with law and in light of the decision in Ravinder Singh Rana. Fresh order be now 5 passed within four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. January 08, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi) (Sandeep Sharma), Judge