IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 17046 of 2026 along with CWP Nos. 17043, 17044, 17057, 17059, , 17060, 17061, 17063, 17064, , 17066, 17137, 17157, 17161 and 17165 of 2026. Decided on : 1 st October, 2026 1. CWP No. 17046 of 2026 Sahil ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 2. CWP No. 17043 of 2026 Amand Deep ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 3. CWP No. 17044 of 2026 Vineet Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 4. CWP No. 17057 of 2026 Sohan Lal ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 5. CWP No. 17059 of 2026 Heera Lal ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 2 6. CWP No. 17060 of 2026 Vishal Thakur ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 7. CWP No. 17061 of 2026 Nishant Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 8. CWP No. 17063 of 2026 Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 9. CWP No. 17064 of 2026 Balinder Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 10. CWP No. 17066 of 2026 Kalpana Kumari ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 11. CWP No. 17137 of 2026 Jodh Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 12. CWP No. 17157 of 2026 Deep Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 3 13. CWP No. 17161 of 2026 Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 14. CWP No. 17165 of 2026 Vikram Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Mr.. Ankush Chauhan and Mr. Sourav Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L. N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Notice. Ms. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 3. Petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to count their contract services for the purpose of annual increments, seniority, promotion and all other consequential benefits. They seek applicability of the decision rendered in Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. It is an admitted position that the “Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024” has been quashed and set aside in Devinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr3. It is also a matter of record that State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Devinder Kumar & Ors.4 instituted by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the aforementioned judgment, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 29.07.2026. While dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted four months’ time to the State Government to do the needful in terms of the judgment. 4. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for the grant of relief prayed for by them, in accordance with the time-line indicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioners are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of their surviving grievances, if any, 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017 decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023. 3 CWP No. 3361 of 2025 decided alonwith connected matters on 25.04.2026 4 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24885/2026 decided on 29.07.2026 5 at an appropriate stage, in case, necessity so arises, in future. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 1st October, 2026. (jai)