Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Bipin Chander Negi, J
VIROCHAN THAKUR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP No.4900 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anirudh Sharma
For the Respondents: Pranay Pratap Singh
The Court directed the State to decide on the petitioners' representation for counting contractual service for seniority and benefits after the statutory Act previously used to deny such benefits was struck down by the Court.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority and Benefits - Counting of contractual service - Where a statutory bar preventing the counting of contractual service for seniority is struck down by the Court, the State is required to consider the representation for such benefits on its merits. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the representation for counting contractual service for seniority and consequential benefits should be decided following the striking down of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for counting contractual service for seniority and benefits hindered by a statutory act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. removal of statutory bar following the striking down of the relevant act by the court. (Para 4) |
| 3. direction to the state to decide the representation within a specified timeframe. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
(Oral) .
In the present writ petition, the relief is sought for counting the contractual service rendered by the petitioners from the initial date of the appointment as Assistant Professor Tour & Travel (College Cadre) on 23.01.2023 (Annexure P-1), for the purpose of seniority and all other consequential service benefits.
2. Counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the regularization as such was granted two years later on 21.05.2025 on the said post. On account of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Annexure P-2), the respondents as such have not acted upon the representation submitted for counting their services rendered on contractual ba.sis with all consequential benefits from the initial date of the contractual appointment.
3. A perusal of the representation would go on to show that the reference was made to the pendency of CWP No.3361 of 2025 alongwith connected matters, titled as Devinder Kumar & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another wherein the validity of the Act itself was subject matter of consideration and therefore, in such circumstances, the present pet ition came to be filed.
4. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the said dispute has now been settled in as much as the Act itself has been struck down by the detailed judgment dated 25.04.2026 in Devinder Kumar’s case (supra).
5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate if the State is now called upon to look into the representation for grant of seniority and consequential benefits which was not considered on account of the pendency of the litigation and the petitioner had approahced this Court.
6. Resultantly, we direct the State as such to decide the representation submitted on 10.02.2026 appended alongwith the writ petition within a period of eight weeks from the. receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
