Sohan Lal Vs. State & Anr. CWP No.5910/2025 10.04.2025 Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General with Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. CWP No. 5428/2025 & CMP No. 6720/2025 Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition No. 7290/2024. This writ petition was disposed of on 26.12.2024. The decision was based upon CWPOA No.6850/2020 (Milat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) decided on 10.05.2023, which was further based upon CWPOA No. 3435/2020 (Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.) decided on 27.11.2021, wherein office orders 05.04.2018 (Annexure A-14 and A-15) were quashed and set aside. It was further held that petitioners would be deemed to be appointed on 01.05.2003 alongwith all consequential benefits. 3. The respondents set out to implement above decision and vide order dated 28.03.2025 (impunged herein), rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is not entitled for any service benefits such as seniority, increment, promotion etc., having not been appointed on regular basis as per provisions of Act No.23 of 2025. Recovery has also been ordered to be effected from the petitioner in the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Act No.23 of 2025 are not attracted to the case of the petitioner in view of Section 8 of the aforesaid Act, which reads as under:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court; law, rule, notification, order, etc., for the period commencing on and from 12th December, 2003 and ending on the date of commencement of this Act, in Column number 10 of the recruitment and promotion rules notified in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the words “on contract basis”, or such simlar words conveying the same meaning, wherever occurs, the words “by regularisation” shall be deemed to have always been substituted as if this Act had been in force at all material times: Provided that the appointments, if any, already made on contract basis will be regularised or deemed to have been regularised under the provisions of this Act.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the period covered under the Act is w.e.f. 12.12.2003 to 20.02.2025 (date of commencement of the Act), whereas under the decision rendered in CWPOA No.3435 of 2020, petitioner have to be deemed to be appointed on 01.05.2003, i.e. prior to the cut-off period mentioned under the Act. Let the respondents file reply/instructions, inter alia, adverting to the contentions of the petitioner before the next date of hearing. List on 23.04.2025. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed not to take any coercive step qua the petitioner on the basis of impugned order dated 28.03.2025. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th April, 2025 (rohit)