Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting? 1¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yamini Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.5518, 5516, 5517 & 5434/2026

Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.5720, 5553 & 5863/2026

Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate vice Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate in CWP No.4607/2026.

Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate with Ms. Ayush Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.5375/2026

For the Respondents: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India in all petitions except CWP No. 4607/2026.

Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for Union of India in CWP No. 4607/2026.

Ms. Rashmi Nand Kumar, Advocate (through V.C), for National Legal Services Authority in all petitions.

Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate, for H.P. State Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority & Secretary, District Legal Services Authority in all peftitions.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

All these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, hence, have been taken up together for adjudication.

2. Petitioners are serving as Legal Aid Defence Counsel in different capacities on contract basis in different District Legal Services Authorities in the respondent- State. Initially, period of their contractual tenure was one year, extended further from time to time. Petitioners’ grievance is to an ofÏce letter issued by respondent No.3- the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority on 30.03.2026 extending their contractual tenure period only uptill 31.05.2026. Petitioners are also aggrieved against respondent No.3’s decision in issuing fresh advertisements for filling up the posts held by them, again, on contract basis.

3. It is not in dispute that similar legal issue as raised in these petitions was involved and decided in favour of the petitioners in Ramkrishna Soni and others versus Union of India and others²Writ Petition No.36687/2025, decided on 18.12.2025 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.

It is matter of record that aforesaid decision has been assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Jain & others versus Union of India and others. Etc ., 3³Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 6857-6858/2026.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- National Legal Services Authority has placed on record ofÏce letter dated 23.04.2026 issued to all the Members Secretarieus of all the States/ Union Territory Legal Services oAuthorities directing them to extend the contractuaCl period of Legal Aid Defence Counsel engaged in the District Legal Services Authorities till the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The letter reads as under:-

“To The Member Secretaries, All State/ Union Territory Legal Services Authorities.

Subject: Extension of Contractual Period of Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) appointed in the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs), Directions thereof.

Sir/ Madam, It is brought to your kind attention that SLP(C) Nos. 6857-6858 of 2026, titled Suneel Kumar Jain & Others v. Union of India & Ors., is presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the order dated 18th December, 2025, passed by the Hon’ble High Cour.t of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) hasP been challenged. The Hon’ble High Court had, inter alia, held as follows:-

(a) The StandaHrd Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the MP SLSA is contrary to the Scheme of NALSA and accordingly, the SOP dated 6th August, 2026 was quashed by the Hon’ble Court;

(b) The Legal Aid Defence Counsels, who are appointed as per the Modified Scheme of 2022, shall continue to work on their posts ofuappointment on contractual basis;

(c) Work done shall be revised in accordance with the Modified CScheme of 2022. In the event their work is fou