IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15472 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 9th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15472 of 2026 Perminder Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.15589 of 2026 Chhering Dolma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.15590 of 2026 Nisha Bodh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court and the petitions filed by them were disposed of with the direction that the representations preferred by them be decided by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. 3. By drawing the attention of the Court to the orders (Annexure P-4 in all these petitions), learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pursuant thereto the impugned orders have been passed and in terms thereof, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the State Government had enacted the ‘Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2024 Act’). Learned counsel submitted that the vires of the said Act were assailed by way of a writ petition before this Court, i.e. CWP No.3361 of 2025, titled Devinder Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court 3 was pleased to strike down the Act being unconstitutional. The State preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to dismiss the said Special Leave Petition. He submitted that in the light of this fact, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. As the factum of the 2024 Act having been held ultra vires by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the dismissal of the SLP preferred by the State against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is not disputed by the State, accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside with direction to the Competent Authority to take a fresh call on the representations filed by the petitioners in light of the averments made therein in accordance with law and also taking into consideration the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dismissing the SLP filed by the State against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3361 of 2025 (Devinder Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others). This exercise be now carried out within six weeks and the order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. 4 The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 09, 2026 Judge Mukesh