IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 13542 of 2026 Decided on 12.8.2026 Ritu …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. That impugned order annexure P-7 dated 25-11-2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside; b. That writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the Petitioner as Staff Nurse from initial with all date of engagement/appointment consequential & financial benefits, strictly as per R&P rules prevailing at that time; c. That in alternate appointment of petitioner from initial date of appointment (since she joined as Staff nurse on contract basis) may be considered as regular appointment in accordance with R&P and petitioner may kindly be treat as regular appointment against the post of Staff Nurse from the initial date of her appointment for all intent and purposes, with all consequential benefits; d. That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears, increment, interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date when the same fell due till its actual realization.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3948 of 2025 seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents for regularization of her services from the initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits. Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 27.03.2025 by directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. He submitted that now in terms of Annexure P-7, impugned order dated 25.11.2025, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, inter alia, by observing that as the State has enacted the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 2024 Act), the petitioner is not entitled for the said relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Act was assailed before this Court by way of writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 3361 of 2025, titled Devinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. & connected matters, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Further, the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He submitted that in light of this fact, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that this petition be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and by directing the authority to take a fresh call on the representation of the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that as the foundation of the impugned order was the 2024 Act, which has been held to be bad in law by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench has not been disturbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned order is not sustainable. 6. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2025, with further direction to the authority to take a fresh call on the representation of the petitioner in terms of the directions passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, i.e. CWP No. 3948 of 2025. Needful be done within 12 weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2026 (Guleria)