2026:HHC:16813 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7516 of 2026 Date of decision: 14.05.2026. _____________________________________________________________________________ Karam Chand ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …Respondents. ____________________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 _____________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents-State __________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Notice. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears, waives and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents-State. 2. Petitioner is seeking regular appointment from the initial date of appointment, in view of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 and also in terms of judgment passed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16813 CWP No. 7516 of 2026 by this Court as well as the Apex Court in CWP(OA) No. 1077 of 2019, titled Nitin Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No. 5090 of 2022, titled Umesh Jaswal and State of H.P. along with connected matter and CWP No. 4299 of 2019, titled Pushpa Devi and others vs. Himachal Pradesh University. 3. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority on the basis of enactment of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025), vide order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-14). 4. Admittedly, the Employees Act has been quashed and set- aside by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 25.04.2026 passed in CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled as Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P and others connected matters, wherein it has been observed as under:- “2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) (in short ‘Govt. Employees Act’/the Act/the impugned Act). 3. In this common judgment, we are adjudicating only the constitutionality, validity, and legality of the Govt. Employee Act. For other reliefs, the consequences shall follow accordingly, and in case any further relief(s) is/are required to be determined after adjudication of additional facts, not discussed or adjudicated or covered in this judgment, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies, including the filing of fresh petitions for redressal of grievance based on such other issues raised or not raised in these petitions. 3 2026:HHC:16813 CWP No. 7516 of 2026 …… …… …… …... 202. Accordingly, in view of above discussion and considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned Act is quashed and set aside. 203. In view of quashing of the impugned Act, all consequential action, omission and commission of the respondents-State and its functionaries, based on the impugned Act, are declared illegal, unconstitutional and nullify, and resultantly orders/rejection/directions, withdrawal, denying benefits or proposing recovery of already granted reliefs, based on the impugned Act, in conflict with the mandate of the Court are also quashed and set aside and competent authority(ies) is directed to ensure extension of benefits to the employees in terms of judgments passed by the competent Courts, latest by three months from today by issuing appropriate orders, if so required, in consonance with the Constitutional mandate and verdict of the Court(s).” 5. As agreed, by keeping the other issues open, including other prayers made in the petition, present petition is being disposed of regarding the prayer made by the petitioner with respect to legality and constitutionality of the Employees Act in terms of judgment passed in CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled Devinder Kumar & others vs State of HP and others and, accordingly, finding returned on this issue, in this regard, in CWP No. 3361 of 2025, shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to present matter to all intents and purposes. 6. 6. Consequently, impugned office order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-14), rejecting the claim/prayer of the petitioner in view of Government Employees Act also stands quashed and set aside with direction to the competent Authority to decide the same afresh by taking into consideration the provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon 4 2026:HHC:16813 CWP No. 7516 of 2026 by the petitioner supra by passing a speaking and reasoned order on or before 30.06.2026, after giving opportunity of being heard, if so desired. 7. Decision so taken shall be immediately supplied to the petitioner. 8. Needless to say that for redressal of any surviving grievance, petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy by raising all issues already raised in this petition, or not raised in this petitions, for adjudication of the same in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), 14th May, 2026 (susheel) Judge.