The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment on the counting of contractual service for seniority and pensionary benefits, quashing provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. The Court directed reconsideration of seniority claims in accordance with settled legal principles, ensuring fair treatment for government employees with contractual service periods.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Dr. Ajay Kumar and others, are government employees who were initially appointed on a contractual basis on 24.02.2020. Their claim for counting their contractual service period towards seniority and pensionary benefits was rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-8). The rejection was based on the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025), which denied counting contractual service for seniority purposes.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis on 24.02.2020
- The Final Seniority List dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) was issued, excluding their contractual service
- The respondents rejected the petitioners' claim vide communication dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-8)
- The rejection was based on the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024
Procedural History
- CWP No. 3522 of 2026: Filed by the petitioners challenging the rejection of their seniority claim
- CMP No. 15545 of 2026: Application filed by Banita and Renu Bala to implead as respondents, allowed on 03.07.2026
- CWP No. 3361 of 2025: Earlier judgment dated 25.04.2026 (Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P and others), which quashed the impugned Act and set aside consequential actions
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
- Quashing of the Final Seniority List dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) as illegal and arbitrary
- Re-fixation of seniority by counting their entire length of service from 24.02.2020, along with consequential benefits including promotion
- Stay on acting upon the impugned seniority list and holding of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) during pendency of the petition
- Quashing of the rejection communication dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) as arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice
- Declaration that Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether contractual service could be counted for seniority and pensionary benefits under service jurisprudence, and whether the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 denying such counting were constitutional and valid.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that:
- The impugned Act and the rejection communication dated 07.03.2026 were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
- Contractual service should be counted for seniority and pensionary benefits, especially where regularization followed contractual appointment without interruption
- The denial of such benefits was contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence and the mandate of earlier judicial decisions
For the Respondents
The respondents contended that:
- The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 was a valid enactment
- Contractual service could not be counted for seniority or pensionary benefits unless specifically provided for under the rules
- The rejection of the petitioners' claim was in accordance with the provisions of the impugned Act
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P and others (CWP No. 3361 of 2025), wherein the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 was quashed and set aside. The Court observed that the impugned Act denied counting contractual service for seniority, which was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Court laid down the following principles for counting contractual service:
"1. Where there is adjudication and verdict of the Court in favour of employee(s) or category of employees, benefits to such employee(s) shall be governed and extended in terms of such mandate of the Court notwithstanding anything else.
Where there is no specific mandate of Court, such category of employees, appointed on contract in terms of Policy for appointment on contract, but without following the procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules or akin to such provided for regular appointments, followed by regular appointment without interruption, regularization, shall be entitled for counting of contract period of service as qualified service for pensionary/retiral benefits in addition to period of regular service in terms of Rule 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules as well as for mandate of the Courts, and consequently shall be entitled for taking into consideration annual increments for contract period of service by adding the same on notional basis for the purpose of calculation of last pay drawn for determining pension/retiral benefits but not for arrears on account of increment during contract period of service, and such contract period shall not be counted for determining the seniority.
Employees initially appointed on contract basis by following procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules/Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, after subjecting to rigors of such process as applicable for regular appointments including prescribed essential eligibility, with wide publicity inviting all eligible persons to participate in open competition, similar to competition to be adopted for regular appointments, OR any other prescribed mode of recruitment in terms of/following procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules for recruitment including batch-wise etc., on regularization, shall be entitled for all consequential benefits like counting of contract period of service as qualifying service and financial benefits including increments as well as seniority from the date of their initial appointment.
Being a recurring cause of action with respect to claim of pensionary and retiral benefits, but for delay in putting forth claim with Authority or in the Court, financial benefits may be restricted to 3 years prior to putting forth such claim or may be awarded prospectively by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each individual case. However, where there is verdict of the Court to extend such benefits without any restriction, the State or its Officers are not empowered to curtail the same without expressed order of the competent Court.
Claim of seniority has to be considered and decided in consonance with settled principle of service jurisprudence, including all relevant factors, such as stage of claiming seniority, accrual of third party right, opportunity of being heard to all stakeholders (claimants as well as persons likely to be affected), legal objections like delay and laches etc. depending upon peculiar facts and circumstances of a given case benefit of seniority may be extended retrospectively or prospectively, particularly keeping in view the timing of claiming seniority."
The Court held that the findings in Devinder Kumar & others would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case, and the impugned communication dated 07.03.2026 rejecting the petitioners' claim was quashed and set aside.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The impugned communication dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) was quashed and set aside
- The respondents/competent authority were directed to decide the petitioners' claim afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order on or before 14.08.2026
- The decision was to be taken after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, if desired, and by considering the principles laid down in the judgment
- The petitioners were at liberty to avail appropriate remedies for any surviving grievances, including filing fresh petitions
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contractual Service Must Be Counted for Benefits
- Government employees appointed on a contractual basis, followed by regularization without interruption, are entitled to count their contractual service for pensionary and retiral benefits
- The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 has been quashed, and its provisions denying such benefits are no longer valid
- Employees must ensure that their claims are supported by judicial mandates or settled principles of service jurisprudence
Seniority Claims Require Individual Consideration
- Seniority claims must be decided based on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, including:
- The stage at which seniority is claimed
- Accrual of third-party rights
- Opportunity of hearing for all stakeholders
- Legal objections such as delay and laches
- Seniority benefits may be extended retrospectively or prospectively, depending on the timing of the claim
Financial Benefits May Be Restricted
- Financial benefits, such as arrears of increments, may be restricted to 3 years prior to the claim or awarded prospectively, unless a court verdict mandates otherwise
- The State cannot curtail benefits granted by a court verdict without an express order from a competent court
