Lawfully selected contractual service counts from initial appointment for seniority and consequential benefits.

The petitioners were appointed as Post Graduate Teachers (Information Practices and Commerce) on contract basis on 02.12.2014 after selection through the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010

Their services were regularized with effect from 02.06.2018 after completion of three years of contractual service as on 31.03.2018.

The petitioners sought: (i) quashing of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024; (ii) counting of their contractual service from the date of initial appointment for seniority; (iii) annual increments, pay refixation, pension and other consequential benefits; and (iv) regularization from 01.04.2018

The Court noted that the constitutional validity of the impugned Act had already been decided in Devinder Kumar v. State of H.P., CWP No.3361 of 2025, where the Act was quashed and consequential actions based on it were declared illegal.

The petitioners further relied on the fact that PTA-GIA teachers, who had been taken over as contract teachers after them, were regularized from 01.04.2018 pursuant to the judgment in Yashwant Singh v. State of H.P.

Whether the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 was liable to be declared unconstitutional and quashed?

Whether the petitioners, having been appointed through the prescribed selection process on contract basis, were entitled to count their contractual service from 02.12.2014 for seniority and other service benefits?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization with effect from 01.04.2018, instead of 02.06.2018, on the ground that similarly situated and junior PTA-GIA teachers had been regularized from that date?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to arrears and other monetary benefits for the entire period from their initial appointment or regularization, and how should delay and laches affect such relief?

The Court applied Article 309 of the Constitution and the Himachal Pradesh Higher Education Department, Post Graduate Teacher Class-III Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010, under which appointments made through the prescribed recruitment process are rule-compliant.

It followed the earlier judgment in Devinder Kumar v. State of H.P., which had quashed the 2024 Act and invalidated consequential actions founded upon it.

Relying on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, the Court applied the principle that seniority ordinarily runs from the date of appointment where the initial appointment was made according to the governing rules; however, ad hoc or stop-gap service not made in accordance with the rules is excluded.

The Court also relied on Taj Mohammad v. State of H.P., which had attained finality, and the principles emerging from Yashwant Singh v. State of H.P., concerning retrospective regularization of similarly situated PTA-GIA teachers.

The Court further applied the principle that delay may restrict actual monetary relief, while recurring pensionary and service-related claims may still be considered on merits.

The Court found that the petitioners had not entered service through an ad hoc or stop-gap arrangement. They had been selected by the prescribed recruiting agency, after open competition and satisfaction of the qualifications and procedure under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

Consequently, their contractual service from 02.12.2014 was rule-compliant and had to be counted for seniority, pensionary service and annual increments under the Direct Recruit principle.

The Court rejected the distinction based on the fact that the PTA-GIA teachers had initially worked as PTA teachers before being taken over by the Government. That earlier PTA service was not Government service; however, the PTA-GIA teachers became Government contract employees only from January 2015 and were subsequently granted regularization from 01.04.2018.

Since the petitioners had been appointed as Government contract teachers on 02.12.2014, they were senior even as contract employees and could not be placed below those later-appointed teachers.

The Court therefore extended the benefit of regularization from 01.04.2018 and directed recognition of service benefits from the initial appointment date.

Nevertheless, the petitioners had challenged their 2018 regularization only in February 2026. Considering the delay and laches, the Court restricted actual monetary benefits to three years preceding the filing of the petition, i.e. from 04.02.2023. The earlier period was directed to be treated notionally for salary fixation, pensionary benefits and similar purposes.

For seniority, the Court protected persons already promoted or otherwise benefited before the filing of the petition from reversion or adverse alteration, while directing that unpromoted juniors be placed below the petitioners in the revised seniority position.

It held that the petitioners were entitled to count their contractual service from 02.12.2014 for seniority, pensionary service and annual increments.

They were also held entitled to regularization from 01.04.2018, with all consequential service benefits, because juniors appointed later as PTA-GIA contract teachers had received that benefit from the same date.

Actual monetary benefits were limited to the period beginning 04.02.2023, while benefits for the preceding period were made notional.

The revised seniority was not to result in reversion of persons already promoted before the petition was filed, but future seniority and promotions were to be governed by the petitioners’ corrected placement.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of in these terms.