Disposed

Pawan Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC5 May 2026CWP/4330/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 were disposed of in terms of an earlier judgment quashing that Act; seniority disputes were left open for independent adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of in terms of paras 202-203 of CWP No. 3361 of 2025, whereby the impugned Act stands quashed with consequential benefits to employees within three months.

Pawan Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:HHC:14719 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

	CWP No. 4622 of 2025 a/w
	CWP Nos. 4330, 10403 & 10404 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.05.2026
1. CWP No. 4622 of 2025
Kusum Kumari
	....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.
	....Respondents
2. CWP No. 4330 of 2025
Pawan Sharma	....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.	....Respondents
3. CWP No. 10403 of 2025
Sunil Sharma	....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.
	....Respondents
4. CWP No. 10404 of 2025
Praveen Kumar	....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.
	....Respondents
*Coram* *Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Th*	*akur, Judge.*
*Hon’ble Mr Justice Ranjan Sharm*	*a, Judge.*

¶4

( 2026:HHC:14719 )

¶5

*Whether approved for rep*	*orting?*¹
For the Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP Nos. 4622 & 4330 of 2025.
		Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s. Hemant Kumar Thakur & Vidush Chauhan, Advocates, for the petitioner(s), in CWP Nos. 10403 & 10404 of 2025.
For the Respondents	:	Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, in CWP Nos. 4622, 4330, 10403 & 10404 of 2025.
		Mr. Anup Rattan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Dutta, Advocate, for respondent No.2, in CWP Nos. 4622 & 4330 of 2025.
		Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
		Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 and 4, in CWP Nos. 4622 & 4330 of 2025.
		Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 in CWP Nos. 10403 & 10404 of 2025.

¶6

Vivek Singh Thakur,Judge (oral)

¶7

These petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as an identical prayer has been made in these petitions, whereby a prayer has been made to quash and set aside the impugned enactment, namely, the “Himachal Pradesh Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024”. The substantive relief prayed for in all these petitions is also identical in nature. In CWP No. 4622 of 2025, the same reads as under:-

¶8

( 2026:HHC:14719 )

¶9

“A) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned enactment, namely, “Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024” (Annexure P-9), and declaring the same to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India, being violative of the fundamental rights and constitutional provisions.”

¶10

2. Admittedly, vide judgment dated 25.04.2026, passed in CWP No. 3361 of 2025, titled as Devinder Kumar & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and other connected matters, the impugned enactment, namely, the “Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024” (Annexure P-9), stands quashed and set aside along with all consequential actions taken on the basis of the said Act. Therefore, these petitions require no further adjudication, as the prayer made herein already stands granted in terms of the order passed in CWP No. 3361 of 2025.

¶11

3. Relevant paras of CWP No. 3361 of 2025 are as un.der:-

¶12

“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.

¶13

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 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)."

¶14

( 2026:HHC:14719 )

¶15

4. At this stage, Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4, in CWP Nos. 4622 and 4330 of 2025, submits that the dispute regarding seniority and consequential benefits, including promotion, as well as the issue with regard to entitlement to such seniority and consequential benefits, is the subject matter of CWP No. 5896 of 2023, wherein the parties are contesting their respective pleas. Therefore, it is clarified that the rights being claimed and disputed in CWP No. 5896 of 2023 shall be adjudicated independently in that petition.

¶16

5. With aforesaid observations, these petitions are also disposed of in terms of above quoted paras of judgment passed in CWP No. 3361 of 2025 leaving open all other issues between the parties to be decided in appropriate proceedings including CWP No. 5896 of 2023.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(Vivek Singh Thakur) (Judge)

¶19

(Ranjan Sharma) (Judge)

¶20

05^th May, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez)

Pawan Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tek Chand Vs the State of Hp and Another

Jia Lal Vs the State of Hp and Another

Lalit Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jagdish Thakur and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sunil Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Another