IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14870 of 2025 Decided on: 15th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reeta Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner instituted Anil Kumar & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking applicability of Nitin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Anr.3. The said writ petition was 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.7250 of 2024, decided on 03.01.2025 3 CWPOA No.1077 of 2019, decided on 22.08.2022 2 disposed of on 03.01.2025 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Nitin Kumar3 and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide impugned office order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) rejected her representation. 3. The rejection of petitioner’s representation is primarily on the ground that the relief claimed for by her cannot be allowed in view of provisions of the ‘Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No.23 of 2025)’ and hence, the period of contractual service cannot be counted towards seniority, annual increments and promotion etc. 4. Petitioner’s case was not for counting her contractual service towards seniority, annual increments and promotion. Her prayer was for decision of her representation in light of law laid down in Nitin Kumar3. In Nitin Kumar3, the grievance of the petitioner was that her appointment on contractual basis was improper; At the time of petitioner’s (therein) appointment, there was no provision for contractual appointment in the then existing Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Rules; The Rules provided 3 only for regular appointments. After taking note of the R&P Rules in force, the respondents were directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner therein (Nitin Kumar) on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment. Present petitioner has also prayed for his appointment to be deemed as regular from the date of her contractual appointment. She has not prayed for counting the period of her contractual service for seniority, annual increments and promotion. Respondent No.3 has misdirected himself while deciding the representation of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned office order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law strictly in light of Anil Kumar & Anr.2 within a period of three weeks from today. The order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 15, 2025 Judge Mukesh