Disposed

Amita Thakur and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jul 2026CWP/1232/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Himachal Pradesh Government Employees Act, 2024 and seeking counting of contract service for seniority and retiral benefits. Applying its earlier judgment in Devinder Kumar quashing the Act, the Court disposed of the petition directing the Director of School Education to decide the petitioners' representations by a fixed date.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amita Thakur and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1232 of 2026 Date of decision: 01.07.2026

¶3

Amita Thakur & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents.

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

¶10

Petitioners, invoking provisions of Article 226 of the

¶11

Constitution of India, have filed the present Writ Petition praying for following substantive reliefs:-

¶12

“(i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside "The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Government employee Act, 2024", dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure P-4), since the same has been enacted by the respondent State contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is clear cut violation of the Constitution, in view of the fact that as per the Constitution, the legislature cannot encroach upon the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

¶13

(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to count the contract period of the

¶14

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶15

-2-

¶16

petitioners for the sake of seniority and monetary benefits from the initial date(s) of appointment in light of the judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004/2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and others vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-3).”

¶17

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

¶18

Kumar & others vs State of H.P and others connected matters ’, wherein, it has been observed as under:-

¶19

“2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the enactment of the 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’ ).

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

-3-

¶24

already granted reliefs, based on the impugned Act, in conflict with the 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 three months from today by issuing appropriate orders, if so required, in consonance with the Constitutional mandate and verdict of the Court(s).”

¶25

Finding returned in CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled ‘Devinder Kumar & others vs State of HP and others’ shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to present matter to all intents and purposes.

¶26

Consequently, petitioners are permitted to file

¶27

representation(s) on or before 15.07.2026 for redressal of their grievance to Director of School Education and representation so preferred shall be decided by the Director School Education on or before 31.08.2026 by passing speaking and reasoned order, after giving opportunity of hearing, if so desired, by taking into consideration following settled principles of law, inter alia, amongst others as applicable:-

¶28

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

¶29

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 in Recruitment and Promotion Rules or akin to such provided for regular appointments, followed by regular appointment without interruption, regularization, shall be entitled for 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 entitled for taking into consideration annual

¶30

-4-

¶31

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 for determining the seniority.

¶32

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 including prescribed essential eligibility, with wide publicity inviting all eligible persons to participate in open competition, similar to 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 service and financial benefits including increments as well as seniority from the date of their initial appointment.

¶33

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 into consideration the facts and 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 not empowered to curtail the same without expressed order of the competent Court.

¶34

Claim of seniority has to be considered and decided in consonance with settled principle of service jurisprudence, including all relevant factors, such as stage of claiming seniority, accrual of third party right, opportunity of being heard to all stakeholders (claimants as well as persons likely to be affected), legal objections like delay and laches etc. depending upon peculiar facts and circumstances of a given case benefit of seniority may be extended retrospectively or prospectively, particularly keeping in view the timing of claiming seniority.”

¶35

5. Decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners immediately.

¶36