2026:HHC:22536 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.18137 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.06.2026 __________________________________________________________ Satvinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of HP and others ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Present petition has been filed, seeking the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the ‘Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Condition of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024’, (Annexure P-6) may kindly be struck down being unconstitutional and against the mandate of Articles of 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the interest of law and justice. (ii) That appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and office order dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:22536 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from the initial date of his appointment i.e. 27.11.2013 with all intent and purpose and further directed to count the contract period of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.11.2013 to 19.05.2017 as regular with all consequential benefits.” 2. Petitioner is seeking regular appointment from the initial date of appointment, in view of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 and also in terms of judgment passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court in CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019, titled Nitin Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No.5090 of 2022, titled Umesh Jaswal and State of H.P. along with connected matter and CWP No. 4299 of 2019, titled Pushpa Devi and others vs. Himachal Pradesh University. 3. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority on the basis of enactment of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025), vide Office Order dated 20.09.2025 [Annexure P-5]. 3 2026:HHC:22536 4. Admittedly, the Employees’ Act has been quashed and set aside by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 25.04.2026 passed in CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled as Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P and others connected matters, wherein it has been observed as under:- “2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) (in short ‘Govt. Employees Act’/the Act/the impugned Act). 3. In this common judgment, we are adjudicating only the constitutionality, validity, and legality of the Govt. Employee Act. For other reliefs, the consequences shall follow accordingly, and in case any further relief(s) is/are required to be determined after adjudication of additional facts, not discussed or adjudicated or covered in this judgment, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies, including the filing of fresh petitions for redressal of grievance based on such other issues raised or not raised in these petitions. …… …… …… …... 202. Accordingly, in view of above discussion and considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned Act is quashed and set aside. 203. In view of quashing of the impugned Act, all consequential action, omission and commission of the respondents-State and its functionaries, based on the impugned Act, are declared illegal, unconstitutional and nullify, and resultantly orders/rejection/ 4 2026:HHC:22536 directions, withdrawal, denying benefits or proposing recovery of already granted reliefs, based on the impugned Act, in conflict with the mandate of the Court are also quashed and set aside and competent authority(ies) is directed to ensure extension of benefits to the employees in terms of judgments passed by the competent Courts, latest by three months from today by issuing appropriate orders, if so required, in consonance with the Constitutional mandate and verdict of the Court(s).” 5. Finding, returned in CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled Devinder Kumar & others vs State of HP and others, shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to present matters to all intents and purposes. 6. Consequently, impugned Office Order dated 20.09.2025 [Annexure P-5] rejecting the claim/prayer of the petitioner in present petition in view of Government Employees Act also stands quashed and set aside with direction to the competent Authority to decide the same afresh by taking into consideration the provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner [supra] by passing a speaking and reasoned order on or before 30.07.2026, after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. Decision so taken shall be immediately supplied to the petitioner. 5 2026:HHC:22536 7. Needless to say that for redressal of any surviving grievance(s), petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy by raising all issues already raised in this petition, or not raised in this petition, for adjudication of the same in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June16, 2026 [Bhardwaj]