Neetu Duggal & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge [Oral] Admittedly, main issue involved in present petition with respect to validity, legality and constitutionality of 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) has been adjudicated and decided vide judgment dated

25.04.2026 passed in CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled as Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P and others connected matters, wherein, it has been observed as under:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - “2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the enactment of the Himachal Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) (in ‘Govt. Employees Act’/the Act/the impugned Act). Pradesh Recruitment

judgment, we are common In 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, petitions for redressal of grievance based on such other issues raised or not raised in these petitions. including the filing of …… …… ……

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. nullify,

In view of quashing of the impugned Act, all consequential action, omission and commission of the respondents-State and its functionaries, based on the impugned Act, are declared illegal, unconstitutional resultantly orders/rejection/directions, withdrawal, denying benefits or proposing recovery of already granted reliefs, based on the impugned Act, 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 issuing three months if so required, appropriate orders, the Constitutional consonance with mandate and verdict of the Court(s).” in conflict with today by

Finding returned in CWP No.3361 of 2025 - 3 - title Devinder Kumar & others vs State of HP and others shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to present matters to all intends and purposes.

3. Consequently, office order(s)/instructions, if any, rejecting the claim/prayer of the petitioners on the basis of Government Employees Act also stands quashed and set aside with direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioners afresh as expeditiously as possible latest by 30.06.2026 by taking into consideration following settled principles of law inter alia amongst others as applicable: -

Where there is adjudication and verdict of the Court in favour of employee(s) or category of employees, benefits to such governed and employee(s) extended in terms of such mandate of the Court notwithstanding anything else. shall be

2. Where there is no specific mandate of Court, such category of employees, appointed on contract in terms of Policy for appointment on contract, but without following the procedure prescribed Recruitment and Promotion Rules or akin regular followed regular appointments, interruption, without appointment regularization, entitled shall be counting of contract period of service as qualified service for pensionary/ retiral benefits in addition to period of regular service in terms of Rule 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules as well as for mandate of the Courts, and consequently shall be provided - 4 - taking entitled into consideration annual increments for contract period of service by adding the same on notional basis for the purpose of calculation of last pay drawn for determining pension/retiral benefits but not for arrears on account of increment during contract period of service, and such contract period shall not be counted seniority. for determining including competition,

3. Employees initially appointed on contract basis by following procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules/Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, after subjecting to rigors of such process as applicable for regular appointments prescribed essential eligibility, with wide publicity inviting all eligible persons to participate competition to be adopted for regular appointments, OR any other prescribed mode of recruitment in terms of/following procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules for recruitment including batch-wise etc., on regularization, shall be entitled for all consequential benefits like counting of contract period of service as qualifying financial benefits including increments as well as seniority from the date of their initial appointment. service and similar

Being a recurring cause of action with respect to claim of pensionary and retiral benefits, but for delay in putting forth claim with Authority or in the Court, financial benefits may be restricted to 3 years prior to putting forth such claim or may be awarded prospectively by taking circumstances of each individual case. However, where there is verdict of the Court to extend such benefits without any restriction, the State or its Officers are the same not empowered without expressed order of the competent Court. consideration to curtail

Claim of seniority has to be considered - 5 - and decided in consonance with settled jurisprudence service principle including all relevant factors, such as claiming seniority, accrual of third party right, opportunity of being heard to all stakeholders (claimants as well as persons likely to be affected) etc.

4. Accordingly, aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of CWP No. 3361 of 2025 with liberty to the parties to avail appropriate remedy with respect to surviving grievance, if any, regarding issue raised or not raised in the present petition including filing of fresh petition(s).

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), any, also stand disposed of in same terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 04, 2026 [Shivender]