Legislature Cannot Retrospectively Overrule Judicial Mandamus by Simply Changing the Statutory Basis of Services.

The State of Himachal Pradesh historically engaged in ad hoc and contractual appointments for sanctioned posts to manage financial constraints

Over decades, various judicial pronouncements, including those in Taj Mohammad and Lekh Ram, mandated that contractual employees appointed via Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Rules be granted service benefits, including seniority, upon regularization

In response to these "troubling judgments" and citing a potential 21-year seniority overhaul and financial burden, the State enacted the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 ("the Act")

The Act retrospectively redefined "contractual service" as "regularization" (Section 8) and declared that service benefits such as seniority and increments would only accrue from the date of regularization, effectively withdrawing benefits previously granted by court mandates (Section 6)

Thousands of employees challenged the Act’s constitutionality

Article 309 of the Constitution regarding the power to regulate public services, noting it cannot be used to bypass the Constitutional scheme

The court relied on the "Separation of Powers" doctrine and the "Rule of Law", which are basic features of the Constitution

Principle from Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, which establish that while a legislature may remove the legal basis of a judgment retrospectively, it cannot directly overrule a court's decision or nullify a mandamus

Equality Clause under Article 14, stating that "manifest arbitrariness" is a ground to strike down plenary legislation

The Court reasoned that the Act was not a "validating statute" intended to cure a technical defect in prior law, but a "mischievous" attempt to overwrite judicial interpretations of the Constitutional scheme

The Court observed that Section 3 of the Act envisages an "extra-constitutional" mode of recruitment where persons perform government duties without being in "public service" until regularization, which creates a legal vacuum for pre-regularization engagement

By making Section 8 retrospective, the State sought to "legislatively overrule" settled rights to seniority and increments already upheld by the Supreme Court, which the Court deemed a "transgression of constitutional limitations"

The Court rejected the State’s defense of "financial constraints," ruling that paucity of funds cannot be used by a "Model Employer" to evade mandatory legal duties or balance budgets on the backs of employees

The Act was found discriminatory as it targeted only those appointed after 2003, while the State had already extended similar benefits to those appointed earlier

The Court held that the State cannot use its legislative power to nullify a mandamus or sit in appeal over judicial decisions

The entire Act was quashed as Sections 3 and 5 to 9 were found to be in "flagrant violation" of the Constitutional framework

The Court ordered the State to restore and ensure the extension of all service benefits, including seniority and increments, to the affected employees in accordance with prior judicial verdicts within three months