ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS vs HPSEBL AND ORS

2026:HHC:37915
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.13050 of 2025
a/w CWP Nos.13184, 13260, 13261, 13262,
13263, 13297, 13299, 13300, 13301, 13302,
13303, 13304, 13305, 13306, 13307, 13308,
13309, 14260, 14264, 14265, 14267, 14409,
14411, 14413, 14465, 14466, 14467, 14468,
14472, 14962, 14963, 14974, 14988, 15364,
15365, 15366, 15367, 15382, 15383, 15384,
15385, 15386, 15387, 15388, 15389, 15390,
15391, 15392, 15483, 15486, 15487, 15488,
15489, 15490, 15733, 15734, 15735, 15736,
15737, 15738, 15739, 15740, 15741, 15742,
15743, 15744, 15745, 15746, 15747, 15748,
15749, 15750, 15751, 15752, 15753, 15754,
15755, 17133, 17259, 17305, 17805 and
17808 of 2025.
Reserved on : 27.08.2026
Decided on : 08.09.2026
Uploaded on: 08.09.2026
__________________________________________________________
1. CWP No.13050 of 2025
Ashwani Kumar & Ors.
…Petitioners.
Versus
HPSEBL & Ors.
…Respondents.
2. CWP No.13184 of 2025
Ritika Chauhan.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
3. CWP No.13260 of 2025
Daleep Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
4. CWP No.13261 of 2025
Khem Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
5. CWP No.13262 of 2025
Ghanshyam.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
6. CWP No.13263 of 2025
Sunita Kashyap.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
7. CWP No.13297 of 2025
Satish Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
8. CWP No.13299 of 2025
Kamal Kishore Dhiman.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
9. CWP No.13300 of 2025
Sarita Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
10. CWP No.13301 of 2025
Jitender Thakur.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
11. CWP No.13302 of 2025
Vikas Sharma.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
12. CWP No.13303 of 2025
Pratibha.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
13. CWP No.13304 of 2025
Arvind Sharma.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
14. CWP No.13305 of 2025
Manoj Kumar Sharma.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
15. CWP No.13306 of 2025
Pankaj Sharma.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
16. CWP No.13307 of 2025
Sunil Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
17. CWP No.13308 of 2025
Aarti Thakur.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
18. CWP No.13309 of 2025
Bhupender Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEBL.
…Respondent.
19. CWP No.14260 of 2025
Sunil Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
20. CWP No.14264 of 2025
Ranjeet Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
21. CWP No.14265 of 2025
Usha Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
22. CWP No.14267 of 2025
Vinod Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…Respondents.
23. CWP No.14409 of 2025
Priyanka Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
24. CWP No.14411 of 2025
Lokender Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
25. CWP No.14413 of 2025
Sandeep Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
26. CWP No.14465 of 2025
Reeta Devi.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
27. CWP No.14466 of 2025
Parmeshwari Devi.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
28. CWP No.14467 of 2025
Chander Kanta.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
29. CWP No.14468 of 2025
Dharmender Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
30. CWP No.14472 of 2025
Rakesh Rana.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
31. CWP No.14962 of 2025
Raman Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
32. CWP No.14963 of 2025
Neeraj Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
33. CWP No.14974 of 2025
Pardeep Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
34. CWP No.14988 of 2025
Girija Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
35. CWP No.15364 of 2025
Manoj Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
36. CWP No.15365 of 2025
Yogender Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
37. CWP No.15366 of 2025
Amit Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
38. CWP No.15367 of 2025
Kapil Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
39. CWP No.15382 of 2025
Avtar Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
40. CWP No.15383 of 2025
Chaman Lal.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
41. CWP No.15384 of 2025
Ajay Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
42. CWP No.15385 of 2025
Raman Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
43. CWP No.15386 of 2025
Kusum Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
44. CWP No.15387 of 2025
Aman.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
45. CWP No.15388 of 2025
Malkiyat Walia.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
46. CWP No.15389 of 2025
Deepika.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
47. CWP No.15390 of 2025
Pradeep Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
48. CWP No.15391 of 2025
Yogesh Thakur.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
49. CWP No.15392 of 2025
Rohit Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
50. CWP No.15483 of 2025
Kala Ram.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
51. CWP No.15486 of 2025
Manoj Kumar Panila.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
52. CWP No.15487 of 2025
Harish Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
53. CWP No.15488 of 2025
Surender Mohan.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
54. CWP No.15489 of 2025
Surender Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
55. CWP No.15490 of 2025
Shiv Koundal.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
56. CWP No.15733 of 2025
Rajeev Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
57. CWP No.15734 of 2025
Manjeet Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
58. CWP No.15735 of 2025
Manoj Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
59. CWP No.15736 of 2025
Vijay Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
60. CWP No.15737 of 2025
Satish Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
61. CWP No.15738 of 2025
Pratap Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
62. CWP No.15739 of 2025
Pradeep Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
63. CWP No.15740 of 2025
Indu Patyal.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

12
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
64. CWP No.15741 of 2025
Vinod Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
65. CWP No.15742 of 2025
Sanjeev Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
66. CWP No.15743 of 2025
Yogesh Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
67. CWP No.15744 of 2025
Trilok Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
68. CWP No.15745 of 2025
Pratibha Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
69. CWP No.15746 of 2025
Neeraj Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

13
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
70. CWP No.15747 of 2025
Nishant Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
71. CWP No.15748 of 2025
Hemant Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
72. CWP No.15749 of 2025
Raju.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
73. CWP No.15750 of 2025
Kuldeep Kashyap.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
74. CWP No.15751 of 2025
Rajender Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
75. CWP No.15752 of 2025
Sunil Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

14
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
76. CWP No.15753 of 2025
Umesh Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
77. CWP No.15754 of 2025
Jitender Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
78. CWP No.15755 of 2025
Avinash Kumar.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
79. CWP No.17133 of 2025
Kuldeep.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…Respondents.
80. CWP No.17259 of 2025
Ranjeet Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…Respondents.
81. CWP No.17305 of 2025
Kiran Kumari.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

15
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
82. CWP No.17805 of 2025
Sukhvinder Singh.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…Respondents.
83. CWP No.17808 of 2025
Shashi Kant.
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…Respondents.
__________________________________________________________

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
__________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner(s). Mr. Devender K. Sharma and Mr. Pankaj
Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioner(s) in
respective petitions.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate
General for respondents-State in all petitions.
Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Mr. Rajinder Singh
Thakur and Mr. Virbahadur Verma,
Advocates, for respective respondents, in
respective petitions.
__________________________________________________________
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

16
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
For request made on behalf of petitioners as well as
respondents, as common question of law and facts are to be adjudicated,
all these petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided by
this common judgment.
2. Petitioners were recruited and appointed and are serving as
Junior Office Assistant in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Limited-respondent No. 1. They have approached this Court, seeking
direction to the respondents to count their contract services, followed by
regular service without interruption for all consequential benefits,
including seniority benefits related thereto and to promote the petitioners
to the post of Senior Assistant on completion of 7 years, which is
minimum requisite service as JOAs required for promotion to the post of
Senior Assistant.
3. A request was made by the Board, by filing an application,
i.e., CMP No. 27503 of 2025, to consider reply filed in CWP No. 13050 of
2025 as reply in all connected petitions, which has been stated to be
detailed, exhaustive and comprehensive, dealing with all aspects of law
and facts, and policy involved. Accepting the request of the Board, reply
filed by the Board in CWP No. 13050 of 2025 has been considered reply
filed to all petitions clubbed in this bunch.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

17
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
4. No separate reply was intended to be filed by and on behalf
other respondents. Accordingly, all petitions are being decided on the
basis of pleadings in CWP No. 13050 of 2025.
5. Summary of the reliefs sought by the petitioners in these
petitions is as under:
A. The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 be
declared ultra vires of the Constitution and quashed.
B. Impugned Office Order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-
11), whereby decision of the HP Electricity Board
Limited to adopt Employees Act, 2024, issued vide letter
No. PER(AP)-C-A(3)-6/2024, dated 20.02.2025, issued
by Under Secretary (Personnel) and notification
regarding requisition of vacancies, selection process,
offer of appointment and guidelines of trainees issued by
the Under Secretary (Personnel) vide letter number PER
th
(AP)-C-B(15)-3/2024-Loose dated 14 May, 2025, has
been notified, be quashed and set-aside.
C. Respondent-Board be directed to count contractual
service of petitioners for all service benefits, including
seniority with all consequential benefits.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

18
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
D. Arrears accrued on account of counting of contract
service for all purposes be paid to the petitioners with
interest @ 9% per annum till the date of regularization.
E. DPC to promote the JOAs to the post of Senior
Assistant be held and eligible petitioners be promoted
from the date of completion of 7 years service, from date
of initial appointment on contract basis, to the post of
Senior Assistant as per available vacancies in the year
2024 in the cadre of Senior Assistant along with clerks,
who were promoted prior to petitioners, despite being
junior, but for considering petitioners ineligible, however,
without counting their contract service towards eligibility
to grant seniority.
F. Direction to promote the petitioners/JOAs, on completion
of 7 years service by counting their contract services for
completing 7 years as JOA against available vacancies
in respective year with all consequences from the date
which their juniors were promoted.
6. Undisputed facts are that respondent Board updated the
Recruitment and Promotion Regulations (R&P Rules) for the post of
Senior Assistant published vide notification No. HPSEBL (SECTT) /R&E/
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

19
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
106-10/22-23-59314-534, dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), prescribing
method of recruitment to the post of Senior Assistant 100% by promotion,
wherein 43% quota has been prescribed for clerks and 57% quota has
been prescribed for Junior Assistant.
7. Respondent-Board sent requisition(s) to H.P. Staff Selection
Commission, Hamirpur for recruitment of Junior Office Assistant (IT) in
the respondent-board in accordance with eligibility and procedure
prescribed in R&P Rules, applicable to recruitment of JOA(IT) on regular
basis, however, inviting applications for contractual appointments.
8. In pursuance to the requisition(s) of the respondent-Board,
Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur issued Advertisement(s) time to
time. In response thereto, petitioners being eligible in all respect to be
appointed as a regular JOA(IT) fulfilling eligibility criteria prescribed under
R&P Rules framed by the respondent-Board under proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution, applied for the said post and process was completed
by the Staff Selection Commission by following proper procedure, as
prescribed under aforesaid R&P Rules for the appointment to the post of
Junior Office Assistant.
9. After competing with all eligible candidates, who had
responded to the advertisement published, inviting application from all
eligible candidates desirous to compete, the petitioners were successful
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

20
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
in selection process and in terms of recommendation of Selection
Commission, they were appointed on contract basis on various dates
from 19.06.2017 to 31.03.2022, including Office Orders dated
19.06.2017, 22.08.2017, 16.09.2017, 27.09.2017, 24.01.2018,
20.10.2018 and 31.03.2022 etc.
10. The appointment offered to the petitioners was contractual
in nature, which continued till their regularization on completion of three
years, in terms of Policy decision of the State, and petitioners were
regularized on various dates from 06.10.2020 to 06.06.2024 during the
year 2020 to 2024.
11. Petitioners in CWP No. 13050 of 2025, combined with their
contractual service, completed 7 years of services in June 2024.
Therefore, they preferred a writ petition 6993 of 2024, titled Ashwani
Kumar and others versus State of HP on 12.07.2024 for counting their
contract service for extending all service benefits including seniority with
all consequences. The said petition was disposed of by a Single Bench of
this High Court, vide judgment dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) with the
direction to the respondent to consider and decide the representation of
the petitioner within 6 weeks strictly in terms of judgment (Annexure P-5)
passed by this High Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Taj
Mohammad and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

21
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
12. Vide order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-7), respondent
Board issued order for holding DPC of clerks who were appointed after
the appointment of the petitioners.
13. Petitioners in CWP No. 13050 of 2025 filed an Execution
Petition No. 1145 of 2024, titled Ashwani Kumar vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh on 26.09.2024. For placing on record order dated 09.01.2024
(Annexure P-9), whereby representation of the petitioners was stated to
have been rejected, the Execution Petition (Annexure P-8) was disposed
on 28.03.2025 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court by way
of appropriate application in case they were aggrieved by the rejection of
the representation.
14. In the meanwhile, State of Himachal Pradesh enacted
Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government
Employees Act, 2024 (in short ‘Employees Act, 2024) (Annexure P-10),
which was assented by the Governor on 07.02.2025. Respondent Board
adopted the said Act as well as Notification regarding requisition of
vacancies, selection process offer of appointment-guidelines of Trainee
and the decision of adoption was circulated vide Office Rrder dated
17.07.2025 (Annexure P-11).
15. It is apt to record that in all petitions, except one, i.e., CWP
No. 17808 of 2025, representations were rejected prior to enactment of
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

22
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
Employees Act, 2024, and there is no reference of the Employees Act for
rejecting the representation. However, representation in CWP No. 17808
of 2025 was decided on 08.04.2025, wherein one reason for rejection
was also added along with other grounds for rejection on the basis of
enactment of Employees Act, 2024.
16. In response to the petitions, in reply filed on behalf of
respondent-Board along with other grounds, a ground for repelling the
claim of the petitioners has been taken on the basis of enactment of
Employees Act 2024.
17. Admittedly, issue with regard to enactment of Employees
Act 2024, which has been challenged by the petitioners, but has been
relied upon by the respondents, to pray for rejection of the petition, has
already 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:-
“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).
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
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

23
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
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.
…… …… …… …...
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.
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
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).”
18. The aforesaid judgment has been affirmed by the Apex
Court by dismissing the SLP preferred by the State, i.e., SLP(C) No.
24885 of 2026, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Devinder Kumar &
others, vide order dated 29.07.2026.
19. Therefore, as agreed, 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.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

24
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
20. A ccordingly, the impugned Office Order(s), rejecting the
claim of the petitioners on the base of Employees Act 2024, has been
quashed and set aside with further observation that prayer for rejecting
the petition as well as claim of the petitioners on the basis of enactment of
Employees Act 2024 also stands rejected in terms of the judgment
passed in Devender's case , supra.
21. Plea based on enactment of Employees Act, 2024 to repel
the claim of petitioners, is not available to the respondents and, thus, the
same is rejected.
22. Now, main issue remains to be adjudicated for the rest of
the prayer is that as to whether petitioners are entitled for counting of their
contract service for all intents and purposes, after regularization, including
seniority and consequential benefits, or not.
23. Petitioners are claiming their right for counting of contract
services for all service benefits including seniority, which has been
followed by regularization/regular appointments, without interruption of
contract service of 3 years or more because for appointment on contract,
petitioners successfully competed with all eligible candidates, who had
applied for the post along with petitioners in response to the
Advertisement inviting applications for recruitment issued in open market
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

25
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
to the public at large, by facing the rigors prescribed for appointment in
R&P Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
24. To substantiate their claim, petitioners are relying upon
judgment passed by the Apex Court in case titled Direct Recruits Class
II Engineering Officer’s Association vs. State of Maharashtra and
others , reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 , as well as judgment dated
03.08.2023 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.
2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and others vs. The State of
Himachal Pradesh and others and CWP No. 629 of 2018, titled as State
of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Lekh Ram and others.
25. The aforesaid judgment was assailed by State of HP in the
Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No. 25641-25642/2023 titled State of HP
vs. Lekh Ram and others which was dismissed on 4.12.2023 with
observation that after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner for a
considerable time, impugned order was found perfectly justified and did
not call for interference.
26. Thereafter, Review Petition No. 146 of 2023 titled Taj
Mohammad and others vs. State of HP preferred by Taj Mohammad and
others was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this High Court vide
judgment dated 06.03.2024.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

26
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
27. The Government had also preferred Review Petition along
with application for condonation of delay CMP(M) No. 428 of 2024 titled
State of HP vs. Lekh Ram and others, which was also dismissed by the
Division Bench on 5.9.2024 alongwith unregistered Review Petition by
rejecting the reasons for preferring the Review Petition.
28. Relevant conclusion in Direct Recruit’s case referred by the
petitioners is as under.
“47. To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his
seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and
not according to the date of his confirmat ion.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial
appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made
as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be
taken into account for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure
laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post
uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance
with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
(C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is
permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different
sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily
be followed strictly.
(D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it
should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of
the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed
continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to
do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken
down.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

27
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
(E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the appoint- ments
are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made
after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the
appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below
the appointees from the other source inducted in the service at a
later date.
(F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions
relating to the quota, ordinarily a presumption should be raised
that there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the
quota rule.
(G) The quota for recruitment from the different sources may be
prescribed by executive instructions, if the rules are silent on the
subject.
(H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and is
not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference is
that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative.
(I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as
the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra
belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers.
(J) The decision dealing with important questions concerning a
particular service given after careful consideration should be
respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible
error. It is not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled
position.”
29. Principal Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad's
case, after referring pronouncements of the Apex Court i.e., in cases titled
State of West Bengal and Others vs. Aghore Nath and Others ,
reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 371 , Siraj Ahmad vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported in (2020) 19 Supreme Court
Cases 480 , Registrar General of India and Another vs. Thipa Setty
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

28
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
and Others , reported in (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 690 , R.K.
Mobisana Singh vs. Kh. Temba Singh and Others , reported in (2008) 1
Supreme Court Cases 747 , Surendra Kumar and Others vs. Greateer
Noida Industrial Development Authority and Others , reported in
(2015) 14, Supreme Court Cases 382 and relying upon case tiled Direct
Recruits Class II Engineering Officer’s Association vs. State of
Maharashtra and others , reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 , has held that
services of the petitioners on contract basis from their initial date of
appointment on contract made by following the eligibility criteria and
procedure prescribed under the R&P Rules for appointment, shall be
liable to be counted for the purpose of seniority and consequential
benefits after their regularization.
30. Plea taken by the respondent-Board to repel the claim of the
petitioners in its rejection order as well as reply, is that petitioners' case is
neither covered by the decision of Division Bench of this High Court
passed in Taj Mohammad's case, referred supra , nor by judgment of the
Apex Court in Direct Recruit’s case, referred supra, with explanation that,
in Taj Mohammad's case, petitioners were recruited on contract basis
prior to quota provided for the departmental candidates for their
recruitment/induction to the post of Food Inspector Grade I, and therefore,
direct recruited candidates were held entitled for seniority from the date of
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

29
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
their direct recruitment over and above the departmental candidates who
were subsequently appointed on regular basis, and seniority was granted
over and above the direct recruited Food Inspector Grade-I on contract
basis. It has been contended that in present case, there is no such
dispute.
31. Another ground taken by the respondents in rejection order,
is that judgment dated 06.05.2024, rendered in CWPOA No. 2604 of
2020 , titled Manohar Lal and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others , is
also not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as
seniority amongst the directly recruited JOA (IT) against various quotas
will be considered in accordance with Rules/law and, thus, it has been
contended that Taj Mohammad's case is different and distinguishable
and, thus, it has been communicated that petitioners in the present matter
cannot be granted seniority for the period, particularly when their
appointment was on contract basis, which was accepted by the
petitioners, the same was renewable on year to year basis, and on every
such renewal, it was a fresh contract of employment, which was further
depending upon the requirement of the service of such appointee and
further subject to high standard of work, conduct, and performance.
32. It is case of the respondents that the petitioners were
appointed on one year contract, which was extendable, but at the same
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

30
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
time, contract services could have been terminated even during the
currency of the year on various grounds like failure in making high
standard of work, conduct, and performance.
33. It is also case of the respondents that the services of
petitioners on contract could have been terminated at any point of time,
even prior to expiry of one year. In fact, there is no continuation of
contract service, but it has been renewed after every one year.
34. It has been further submitted that before regularization,
there is no crystallized right in favour of the petitioners or other similarly
situated persons, and therefore, for period before regularization, they
were and are never entitled for any benefit except as provided in the
contract as well as Rule 15-A of R&P Rules.
35. It has been further submitted on behalf of respondents that
petitioners had applied for the contract service, and accepted their
appointment as contract employee, and submitted themselves to the
rigors of Rule 15-A of the R&P Rules, and therefore, they have no right, at
this juncture, to claim for benefits of contract service, conditions whereof
were very clear, providing that no person so appointed will have any right
to claim regularization or permanent absorption in HPSEBL, and
therefore, petitioners cannot claim service benefits of period of contract
service, except in terms of provisions of Rule 15A as well as contract.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

31
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
36. It has been submitted on behalf of Board that services of the
petitioners are to be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract
entered into between the petitioners and the respondent Board, as well as
provisions of Rule 15-A of the R&P Rules, which provide that candidate
selected for appointment on contract basis will be initially appointed for
one year, which could be extendable for further depending upon the
requirement of service of such appointee, and further subject to high
standard work, conduct and performance of appointee. However, their
services may be terminated even prior to completion of contract period,
by issuing one month notice, or payment of one month salary in lieu of
notice, if their services are not required, due to non-availability of work,
and principle of 'first come, last go' shall be followed and their services
may be terminated during the contract period, if the conduct and
performance is not found satisfactory, for which notice shall be given.
37. Similarly, it has been claimed on behalf of the respondent-
Board that emoluments payable to contract appointee have also been
specified and stated in the policy, which provides monthly emoluments at
the rate of initial of the pay scale of the post, plus dearness pay therein.
38. It has been contended by learned counsel for the Board that
after entering into contract with open eyes, now petitioners cannot take U-
turn; therefore, their petitions are liable to be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

32
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
39. In Taj Mohammad's case , contrary to the plea taken by the
respondent-Board, the main issue was that as to whether a contract
employee appointed through prescribed agency, by facing rigors of
procedure and eligibility criteria prescribed under R&P Rules, on
regularization of his continuous contract service without interruption, shall
be entitled for counting of contract service, after regularization, for all
service benefits including seniority with all consequential benefits or not.
40. A similar issue has been adjudicated by five Judges
Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit’s
case. Petitioners' case falls in the first part of conclusion ‘A’ in para 47 of
Direct Recruit’s case, and therefore, plea of the respondents that cases in
Direct Recruit’s case or Taj Mohammad’s case are different in nature, is
misconceived.
41. In Taj Mohammad’s case, there may be dispute between
employees recruited on contract basis prior to quota provided for
departmental candidates and the departmental candidates who were
subsequently appointed on regular basis. The issue involved in the
present matter is not an issue between different quota provided for the
Clerk and the JOAs (IT). However, basic claim of the petitioners is that
they are entitled for counting of entire contract service from the initial date
of appointment. Though there is a reference of promotion of Clerks in the
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

33
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
pleadings, however, promotions of the Clerk has to be made against the
quota provided to them, i.e., 47%, whereas promotions of the JOAs (IT) to
the post of Senior Assistant shall be against the quota meant for them,
i.e., 53%. However, issue involved in present case is as to whether
petitioners are entitled for counting of contract service and if answer is in
yes, then definitely parties and action of the Board would be affected and,
therefore, issue involved in present case, regarding entitlement for
granting of contract service for all intent and purposes after regularization,
is similar to the issue involved in Taj Mohammad's case.
42. Though it is contended on behalf of the Board that contract
was initially for one year, which was extendable on the basis of
recommendation based on conduct and performance of the recruited
person, and their services could have been terminated at any point of
time, and during contract no right accrued in their favor and there was no
crystallized right in favor of the petitioners, however, it is apt to record that
it is not a case where after one year contract or prior to that, services
were terminated on account of completion of one year or on the basis of
conduct and behavior. It is also true that during contract service, no right
accrued or had crystallized in favour of the petitioners. However, it is a
matter of fact that service of none of the petitioners was terminated,
rather, after successful completion of three years contract service, their
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

34
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
services have been regularized and, thus, hypothetical objections taken in
reply as well as for rejecting the petitions, are not sustainable.
43. The rigors of Rule 15A and contract signed between the
petitioners and the respondent-Board were enforceable during the
contract period of service in given facts and circumstances. No such
circumstances occurred and, therefore, no adverse action was taken
against petitioners. However, after successful contract service to the
satisfaction of superiors, petitioners have been regularized. The right has
accrued in favor of the petitioners after regularization only, and thus, the
claim of the petitioners is based on regularization of their service, but not
before regularization. It is made clear that the moment petitioners have
been regularized after successful completion of contract service for
requisite period without interruption, they have become entitled for the
relief claimed. Before regularization, petitioners could not have claimed,
as the right to claim accrued to them when they were regularized and
thereafter on the date when they were and/or are going to complete
seven years, including contract services and immediately on accrual and
crystallization of right in the year 2024, petitioners approached the Court
as well as respondents for redressal of their grievance.
44. It is also apt to record that at the time of first appointment,
unemployed youth has no other option except to sign the agreement. It is
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

35
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
a case of dotted line contract, change wherein are not possible at the
instance of the person going to be appointed, who is on receiving end
and, therefore, the contract in reference is a one-way traffic.
45. Therefore, provisions of Rule 15A or terms of the contract
have no impact on the claim of the petitioners, which is being claimed by
them after successful continuous contract service for requisite period
followed by regularization of their contract appointment made in
accordance with R&P Rules.
46. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that claim of the petitioners is squarely covered by the
pronouncement of the Apex Court in Direct Recruit's case, especially
Para 47-A of conclusion thereof, which has also been followed by this
High Court in Taj Mohammad's case, referred supra.
47. Though, the State and private respondents have adopted
the reply filed on behalf of the Board, but otherwise also there shall be no
impact on counting of contract service of the petitioners for all service
benefits including seniority and eligibility for to be promoted as a Senior
Assistant, because private respondents have been provided separate
quota of 43% for posts of Senior Assistant and JOAs have been provided
separate quota of 57% and they will get the promotion in their own
channel, subject to availability of the post in a particular year or at a
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

36
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
relevant point of time, as and when vacancy for promotion is available.
There is no clash between eligible candidates falling in separate
categories, i.e., category of Clerk as well as in category of JOA (IT).
48. In view above discussion, after their regularization,
respondents are directed to count the contract service of the petitioners,
for all service benefits, including seniority and consequential benefits
thereof as well as annual increment if not already granted at the time of
contract service.
49. Respondents are also directed to consider the petitioners for
promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, subject to eligibility and falling
in zone of consideration after counting of their contract service for all
intents and purposes, as directed supra against the vacancies available in
the year 2024 and, so on every year thereafter, against the post(s)
provided in R&P Rules in the quota of JOAs.
50. Annual increment for the contract period, if not already
granted under the contract, shall be on national basis for the purpose of
calculating future salary at the time of regularization as well as
determining the pensionary benefits. However, in case it has already
been paid actually, the same is not being interfered with.
51. It is also relevant to record here that in terms of contract as
well as Rule 15-A(II), contract employee was and is entitled for 3% annual
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS

37
2026:HHC:37915
CWP No. 13050 of 2025 a/w connected matters
High Court of H.P.
increase after extension of contract beyond one year. In case annual
increment is the same, i.e., 3% annual increase, no additional increment
shall be payable and if annual increment is less, pay increment shall not
be withdrawn and if annual increment is higher then difference shall be
paid.
52. Needless to say, emoluments payable to the petitioners
shall remain same, as has been agreed in the advertisement of initial
recruitment as well as in the contract.
53. We are not passing any direction at this stage to pay interest
on the arrears, if any. However, the arrears shall be paid to the petitioners
on or before 31.12.2026, failing which respondents shall be liable to pay
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accrual, till date of
payment/disbursement of the arrears.
54. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and disposed of in
aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of in same terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
th
(susheel)
8 September, 2026 Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2026 11:46:48 :::CIS