IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3327 of 2021 alongwith CWP Nos. 7458, 7461, 7464, 7941, 7642, 7378, 7490, 7939 and 7940 of 2021 Date of decision : January 8, 2026 1. CWP No. 3327 of 2021 Dr. Namrata Attri ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 2. CWP No. 7458 of 2021 Dr. Vishal Singh Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 3. CWP No. 7461 of 2021 Dr. Navneet Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 4. CWP No. 7464 of 2021 Dr. Shruti Shukla ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 5. CWP No. 7941 of 2021 Ashutosh Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 6. CWP No. 7642 of 2021 Dr. Poonam Soni ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 7. CWP No. 7378 of 2021 Dr. Anurag Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 8. CWP No. 7490 of 2021 Dr. Shikha Kanwar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 9. CWP No. 7939 of 2021 Dr. Himanshu Kaushish ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents 10. CWP No. 7940 of 2021 Dr. Rama Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus -2- Union of India and others ...Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent-Union of India, in all the petitions. Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent-State, in all the petitions. Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 711 of 2026 in CWP No. 3327 of 2021 By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner, for placing on record document, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case at hand. 2. No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having carefully perused the documents sought to be placed on record, this Court sees no impediment in taking the same on record. Accordingly, the application is allowed and documents annexed with the application are ordered to be taken on record. CWP No. 3327 of 2021 alongwith CWP Nos. 7458, 7461, 7464, 7941, 7642, 7378, 7490, 7939 and 7940 of 2021 4. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, same were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -3- 5. By way of instant petitions, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to regularize their services, however, before deciding the lis, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) stated that his client(s) would be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner(s) in light of judgment dated 23.9.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4971 of 2024, titled Nitin Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, CWP No. 814 of 2020 titled Mohan Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 27.10.2025, in a time bound manner, annexed with CMP No. 711 of 2026 in CWP No. 3327 of 2021. 6. It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that the judgment passed in Nitin Thakur supra was assailed by the State by way of LPA No.775 of 2025, titled as State of HP & Ors. vs. Nitin Thakur & Ors., wherein vide order dated 12.11.2025, the direction of regularization has been stayed by the Hon’ble Principal Division Bench, however, with the rider that the State shall not dispense with the services of the petitioners (therein) and the petitioners shall continue to serve on the same terms and conditions; That since the writ petitioners have been paid on contractual basis, the State will be under bounden duty to pay all the said person and utilize their services; Further, it is open to the State to utilize the services of the writ petitioners/employees in any other similarly situated projects. Operative part of order dated 12.11.2025 reads as under:- “9. However, keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioners have been serving the State since the year 2019, we deem it appropriate that the State shall not dispense with their services and writ petitioners shall continue to serve on the same terms and -4- conditions. Needless to say, that since writ petitioners have been paid on contractual basis, the State will be under bounden duty to pay all the said persons and utilize their services. Further, it is open to the State to utilize the services of the writ petitioners/ employees in any other similarly situated projects.” 7. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner(s) would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Nitin Thakur (LPA). Learned counsel for the respondents are not opposed to the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner(s). 8. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner(s) in accordance with law and judgments passed in Nitin Thakur and Mohan Singh supra, taking into consideration aforesaid order dated 12.11.2025 passed in LPA No.775 of 2025, which shall be subject to the final outcome of the said appeal, by passing appropriate order within a period of six weeks from today. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner(s). All the petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), in all the petitions. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge January 8, 2026 (Vikrant)