IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15722/2025 Decided on: 06.10.2025 Parveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma and Ms. Rinkle, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J In view of the controversy involved in the writ petition, the nature of the order impugned herein and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents. The matter has been heard accordingly. 2. Petitioner preferred Praveen Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking applicability of decisions rendered in Pushpa Devi 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No. 393/2025 decided a/w connected matters on 23.04.2025 2 Vs. Himachal Pradesh University3, Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors4 and Nitin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.5 The said petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents/competent authority to decide the representation to be preferred by the petitioner within the time-line indicated therein. Pursuant to the directions issued in Praveen Kumar2, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and vide order dated 16.06.2025 rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file 4. In terms of the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-4), petitioner’s representation has been rejected on the ground that contractual service rendered by her cannot be counted towards regularization in view of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025). The reasoning given by the respondents for rejecting the case of the petitioner is not attracted in the given facts & circumstances. Praveen Kumar2 was not preferred by the petitioner seeking to count contractual service rendered by her towards regularization. Praveen Kumar2 was a case, where the petitioner had 3 CWP No. 4299/2019 decided on 16.08.2019 4 CWP No.5090/2022 decided on 19.12.2022 5 CWPOA No.1077/2019 decided on 22.08.2022 3 prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider her case in light of law laid down in Pushpa Devi3, Umesh Jaswal4 and Nitin Kumar5 to the effect that the petitioner was required to be appointed on regular basis from the day one instead of being appointed on contractual basis, in view of Recruitment and Promotion Rules in force at the relevant time. The respondents have mis-directed themselves while rejecting the case of the petitioner, in view of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. The stand of the respondents is that petitioner’s contractual service cannot be considered for deemed regularization from the date of her initial appointment on contractual basis in view of Act No.23 of 2025. However, such stand has got no legs to stand upon, inasmuch as, as noticed earlier, the petitioner is not seeking to count her contractual service towards regularization, rather her case is that she ought to have been appointed on regular basis from the very first day of her appointment on contractual basis, in view of Recruitment & Promotion Rules in force at the relevant time and in view of law laid down in Pushpa Devi3, Umesh Jaswal4 and Nitin Kumar5. In view of above, impugned order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the 4 petitioner afresh, in accordance with law and in consonance with directions issued in Praveen Kumar2 within three weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 06th October, 2025(rohit)