IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6542 of 2025 and connected matters Decided on: 13th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 6542 of 2025 Mukesh Kumar & Anr …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No. 6546 of 2025 Bodh Raj & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No. 9054 of 2025 Kumari Sushma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Tara Devi, Advocate vice Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge These three writ petitions involve common question of fact and law, hence, have been taken up together. Even though the respondents have not filed reply to these petitions, yet with consent of learned counsel for the matters, matters have been taken up for consideration in view of submissions made by learned Assistant Advocate General. 2. For sake of convenience, gist of the issue involved in these cases, as reproduced in the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in CWP No.6542 of 2025, is cited hereinafter:- “Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners instituted Civil Writ Petition No.10926/2023. This writ petition was disposed of on 01.01.2024. The decision was based upon CWPOA No.6850 of 2020 (Milat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.), decided on 10.05.2023, which was further based upon CWPOA No.3435 of 2020 (Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.), decided on 27.11.2021, wherein office orders dated 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 3. The respondents set out to implement above decision and vide order dated 28.03.2025 (impugned herein), rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners are 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 petitioners in the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that provisions of Act No.23 of 2025 are not attracted to the case of the petitioners 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 similar words conveying the same meaning, wherever occurs, the words “by regularization” 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 regularized or deemed to have been regularized under the provisions of this Act.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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, petitioners have to be deemed to be appointed on 4 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 petitioners within three weeks. List thereafter. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed not to take any coercive step qua the petitioners on the basis of impugned order dated 28.03.2025.” 3. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that order dated 28.03.2025, impugned in all these writ petitions, now stands withdrawn by the respondents under office order dated 01.09.2025. Copy of office order dated 01.09.2025 has been placed on record of CWP No.6542 of 2025. On the strength of the aforesaid office order, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that “The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024” (Act No.23 of 2025) is not applicable to the cases of the petitioner(s), wherein they had prayed for the relief of deemed regular appointment from the first date of their appointment on contractual basis. 4. Since the respondents have now withdrawn the impugned office order, the grievances of the petitioner(s) 5 have been redressed. Accordingly, these writ petitions to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 13, 2025 Judge R.Atal