Manish Chand Katoch Vs the UOI and Others

Advocate with Ms. Yamini Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.5518, 5516, 5517 & 5434/2026 Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.5720, 5553 & 5863/2026 Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate vice Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate in CWP No.4607/2026. Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate with Ms. Ayush Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.5375/2026

¶52

For the Respondents: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India in all petitions except CWP No. 4607/2026.

¶53

Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev

¶54

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶55

3

¶56

( 2026:HHC:16414 )

¶57

Sharma, Advocate for Union of India in CWP No. 4607/2026.

¶58

Ms. Rashmi Nand Kumar, Advocate (through V.C), for National Legal Services Authority in all petitions.

¶59

Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate, for H.P. State Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority & Secretary, District Legal Services Authority in all petitions.

¶60

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶61

All these writ petitions involve common

¶62

questions of law and facts, hence, have been taken up together for adjudication.

¶63

2. Petitioners are serving as Legal Aid Defence Counsel in different capacities on contract basis in different District Legal Services Authorities in the respondent- State. Initially, period of their contractual tenure was one year, extended further from time to time. Petitioners’ grievance is to an office letter issued by respondent No.3- the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority on 30.03.2026 extending their contractual tenure period only uptill 31.05.2026. Petitioners are also aggrieved against respondent No.3’s decision in issuing fresh advertisements for filling up the posts held by them, again, on contract basis.

¶64

3 . It is not in dispute that similar legal issue as

¶65

4

¶66

( 2026:HHC:16414 )

¶67

raised in these petitions was involved and decided in favour of the petitioners in Ramkrishna Soni and others versus Union of India and others² . It is matter of record that aforesaid decision has been assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Jain & others

¶68

versus Union of India and others. Etc.³

¶69

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- National Legal Services Authority has placed on record office letter dated 23.04.2026 issued to all the Members Secretaries of all the States/ Union Territory Legal Services Authorities directing them to extend the contractual period of Legal Aid Defence Counsel engaged in the District Legal Services Authorities till the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The letter reads as under:-

¶70

“To

¶71

The Member Secretaries, All State/ Union Territory Legal Services Authorities.

¶72

Subject: Extension of Contractual Period of Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) appointed in the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs), Directions thereof.

¶73

Sir/ Madam,

¶74

It is brought to your kind attention that SLP(C) Nos. 6857-6858 of 2026, titled Suneel

¶75

2Writ Petition No.36687/2025, decided on 18.12.2025 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.

¶76

3Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 6857-6858/2026.

¶77

5

¶78

( 2026:HHC:16414 )

¶79

Kumar Jain & Others v. Union of India & Ors. , is presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the order dated 18^th December, 2025, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) has been challenged. The Hon’ble High Court had, inter alia, held as follows:-

¶80

(a) The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the MP SLSA is contrary to the Scheme of NALSA and accordingly, the SOP dated 6^th August, 2026 was quashed by the Hon’ble Court;

¶81

(b) The Legal Aid Defence Counsels, who are appointed as per the Modified Scheme of 2022, shall continue to work on their posts of appointment on contractual basis; and

¶82

(c) Work done shall be revised in accordance with the Modified Scheme of 2022. In the event their work is found unsatisfactory, the DLSA and SLSA may take action in accordance with the Modified Scheme of 2022.

¶83

(d) The Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶84

As directed, in view of the aforesaid legal position, the State/UT Legal Services Authorities are, therefore directed to extend the contractual period of the Legal Aid Defense Counsels (LADCs) engaged in the District Legal Services Authority (DLSAs) till the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India...”

¶85

4. In view of the above letter issued by the

¶86

National Legal Services Authority, respondents No. 3 & 4- H.P. State Legal Services Authority & District Legal

¶87

6

¶88

( 2026:HHC:16414 )

¶89

Services Authorities in all these petitions are directed to ensure do compliance to the aforesaid directions issued by National Legal Services Authority or in other words, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue to serve as Legal Aid Defence Counsel in their different existing capacities in different District Legal Services Authorities in the State till the adjudication of Sunil Kumar Jain³ by the Hon’ble Sureme Court of India.

¶90

All these writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶91

Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 13, 2026 Judge yogesh

Manish Chand Katoch v. the UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Chand Katoch v. the UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hoshiar Chand and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Devi Singh Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Others

Lalit Pathak Vs Deputy Commissioner and Others

Parveen Vs the UOI and Others

Jitender Kumar Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Kamal Kishore and Another Vs Abhishek Jain and Others