Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14748 (HP)

DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HP

CWP/11082/2026 · 2026-07-07

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11082 of 2026 Decided on 07th July 2026 Dinesh Kumar and others Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2, being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the impugned order, having been passed on the basis of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment & Conditions of Service Government Employees Act, 2024, which now stands quashed, is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law. 2 (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the contractual service rendered by the Petitioners from the date of their initial appointment in the year 2012 till their regularization on 24.05.2017 as qualifying service for all purposes including seniority, promotion, annual increments, pension and all other consequential benefits. (iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled as "Sh. Taj Mohammad & Ors. vs State of H.P. & Ors.", as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 07.08.2023 and 04.12.2023, to the Petitioners in a time bound manner. (v) In the alternative, direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the Petitioners afresh in light of the judgment dated 25.04.2026 whereby the Act of 2024 has been quashed, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a time bound period.” 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the Director Ayush, Himachal Pradesh, in terms whereof, their representation, wherein, they were seeking the benefit of the contractual service rendered by them before their regularization in the light of the adjudication by this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad and others versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, has been rejected on the ground that the State had brought into 3 force the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, which had retrospective effect and in the light of the said enactment, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the vires of the said Act were under challenge and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in terms of judgment dated 25.04.2026, passed in CWP No.3361 of 2025, titled Devinder Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another has been pleased to hold the provisions of the Act to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India. He submits that as the foundation of the impugned order is the Act, which has been declared to be ultra vires, the order passed by the Authority is non-est in the eyes of law. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General could not dispute these facts. 5. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the foundation of the impugned order now stands eroded, as a result of the Hon’ble Division Bench declaring the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of 4 Government Employees Act, 2024 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India, this petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority dated 19.05.2025, with direction to the Competent Authority to now take a fresh decision on the representation(s) of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of this Court in CWP No.2004/2017, titled Taj Mohammad and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others within a period of eight weeks. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 07, 2026 (Vinod)