IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 168/2026 Decided on: 05.01.2026 Nisha Singla ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Komal Chaudhary, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4 and 3, respectively. In view of the nature of the grievance of the petitioner, order impugned herein and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. Petitioner had instituted Nisha Singla Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking counting of contractual service rendered by her as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said petition was disposed of on 19.03.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider petitioner’s case in light of Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 in the given time frame. Pursuant to the directions, the respondents issued office order on 17.07.2025 rejecting petitioner’s case in light of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has instituted the instant petition. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s case against the impugned order is now covered under Ravinder Singh Rana Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4. The judgment reads as under: - “The only grievance of the petitioners that has been highlighted at this stage is centered towards counting the contractual service rendered by them, followed by regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of ‘pension’. This relief has been claimed in light of law laid down in State of H.P. & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi. 5 The aforesaid decision was followed in S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. etc. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. 6 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also invited attention to a decision rendered in Ram Chand & Ors. Vs. State 2 CWP No. 1879/2025 decided on 19.03.2025 3 CWPOA No. 195/2019 decided on 26.12.2019 4 CWP No.9084/2023 decided a/w connected matters on 18.12.2025 5 SLP(C) No. 10399/2020 decided on 07.08.2023 6 Civil Appeal No(s) .5671-5672/2025, decided on 29.04.2025 3 of H.P. & Ors., 7whereby, the petitioners/ appellants (therein) were held entitled to count their contractual service for purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with consequential benefits, but restricting the actual consequential benefits for three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “39. Accordingly, judgment passed by learned Single Judge is modified with observation that reasoning assigned for deciding CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, shall be Mutatis mutandi applicable to the present matter also and appellants shall be entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with all consequential benefits, but restricting actual consequential financial/benefits to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. 40. Due and admissible benefits shall be released to the appellants within a period of four months from today. Needless (to say that benefits given beyond three years prior to filing of writ petitions shall be extended to them on notional basis.” The aforesaid decision was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ram Chand and Ors.8, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 stayed the impugned directions insofar as they related for counting the contractual service for grant of annual increments. Impugned directions for counting contractual service for the purpose pension, however, were not stayed. The order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reads as under:- “Delay Condoned. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, the direction passed by the High Court in the impugned order to count increments shall remain stayed.” 7 LPA No. 232/2024 decided on 02.09.2024 8 SLP(C) Diary No(s). 8008/2025 4 Similar interim orders have been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in large number of Special Leave Petitions (Civil) preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh in such like matters. 3. In view of above, at this stage, learned Advocate General submits that the respondents-State shall proceed for considering the cases of the petitioners for grant of pension by computing the contractual service rendered by them as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in light of Sheela Devi5 subject to petitioners’ furnishing fresh options in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today, whereafter all consequential action based upon law laid down in Sheela Devi5 shall follow. 4. In view of above submission made by learned Advocate General, the impugned orders passed in the individual cases contrary to above submissions and position of law, are set-aside. Contractual service rendered by the petitioners followed by regularization be computed as qualifying service for purpose of pension in accordance with Sheela Devi5 & Ram Chand8. This exercise be completed within three months from today. Petitioners shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, at an appropriate stage for the redressal of their surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law, in case necessity so arises in future. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s case for counting contractual service rendered by her towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension afresh in accordance with law and in light of the decision in Ravinder Singh Rana4. Fresh order be now passed 5 within four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 05th January 2026(rohit)