2026:HHC:18168 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7792 of 2026 Decided on: 19.05.2026 Sanjay Kumar & others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) That the respondents may be directed to give regular appointment to the petitioners as members of service in the cadre of 'Dental date of initial Mechanic' from the appointment on contract basis and count the service of petitioners rendered on 'contract basis' for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave, carrier progression scheme alongwith all other consequential benefits, from the date of initial appointment alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f., the date when the same fell due till its actual realization, in the interest of law and justice. b) That impugned office order dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed, when the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Condition of Service of Government Employee Act, 2024 has already been quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:18168 25.04.2026 in CWP No. 3361/2025 alongwith connected matters titled as Devinder Kumar & Ors. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., in the interest of law and justice.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Authority concerned, in terms whereof, representation of the petitioner has been dismissed. Copy thereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-7, dated 23.02.2026. A perusal thereof demonstrates that what was weighed with the Authority while rejecting the representation was the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. 4. In light of the fact that the provisions of this Act, on the strength whereof, the implementation of Taj Mohammad’s case was being evaded by the State stands set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by holding them to be ultra vires, the impugned order of course is not now sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order (Annexure P-7), dated 23.02.2026, with further direction to the Authorities to take fresh decision on the representation of the petitioner within three months from today. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 19, 2026 3 2026:HHC:18168 (Rishi)