Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

For the petitioner: Mr. Chaman Singh and Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge [Oral]

¶12

Notice. Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate

¶13

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

2. With consent of parties, this petition is being adjudicated and decided in terms of order being passed hereinafter.

¶15

3. Petitioner is seeking regular appointment from the initial date of appointment, in view of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

¶16

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

2 - 2026:HHC:27269

¶18

(RPwD) Act, 2016 and also in terms of judgment passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court in CWP(OA) No. 1077 of 2019, titled Nitin Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No. 5090 of 2022, titled Umesh Jaswal v. State of H.P. & Others along with connected matters and CWP No. 4299 of 2019, titled Pushpa Devi and others v. Himachal Pradesh University.

¶19

4. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority on the basis of enactment of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025).

¶20

5. Admittedly, the Employees Act has been quashed and set aside by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 25.04.2026 passed in CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P. and Another along with connected matters, wherein it has been observed as

¶21

under:-

¶22

“2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and

¶23

2026:HHC:27269

¶24

3 -

¶25

Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) (in short ‘Govt. Employees Act’ /the Act/the impugned Act).

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

203. 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 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

¶29

2026:HHC:27269

¶30

4 -

¶31

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).”

¶32

6. Findings returned in CWP No. 3361 of 2025 titled Devinder Kumar & others v. State of

¶33

HP and others , shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to present matter to all intents and purposes.

¶34

7. Consequently, impugned office order dated 19.07.2025 [Annexure P-9] , rejecting the claim/prayer of the petitioner in view of Government Employees Act, also stands quashed and set aside with direction to the competent Authority to decide the same afresh by taking into consideration the provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner supra by passing a speaking and reasoned order on or before 31.08.2026, after giving opportunity of being heard, if so desired. Decision so taken shall be immediately supplied to the petitioner.

¶35

8. Needless to say that for redressal of any

¶36

2026:HHC:27269

¶37

5 -

¶38

surviving grievance, petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy by raising all issues already raised in this petition, or not raised in this petition, for adjudication of the same in accordance with law.

¶39

9. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any

¶40

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶41

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶42

July 07, 2026 [Shivender]

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kanda Wine Vs State of Hp and Others

Ranjana W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sanotkha Ram

Prem Chand Katna Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others

M/S Timco Steel Company Vs the UOI and Others

Naval Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Friends Alloys Vs the UOI and Others