Himachal Pradesh Recruitment Act Sections 6-8 | Unconstitutional for Violating Natural Justice & Arbitrary Regularization Bar: HP HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has struck down key provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, declaring them unconstitutional and arbitrary. The judgment directs the state to reconsider the petitioner's claim for regularization of service from her initial appointment in 2006, ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates and judicial precedents.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Manjula Rana, a contractual employee appointed as a Staff Nurse in January 2006, sought regularization of her service along with consequential financial benefits. Her representation for regularization was rejected by the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, vide Office Order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-12), citing the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025).

Key Facts

• The petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis as a Staff Nurse in January 2006.
• The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the Employees’ Act) was enacted to regulate the recruitment and service conditions of government employees.
• The petitioner’s representation for regularization was rejected on 29.09.2025 under the provisions of the Employees’ Act.
• The Employees’ Act was challenged in a batch of petitions, including Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P. and others (CWP No. 3361 of 2025), wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court quashed the Act as unconstitutional on 25.04.2026.

Procedural History

• January 2006: Petitioner appointed on contractual basis as Staff Nurse.
• 29.09.2025: Petitioner’s representation for regularization rejected (Annexure P-12).
• 2025: Employees’ Act enacted (Act No. 23 of 2025).
• 2025: Multiple writ petitions filed challenging the Employees’ Act.
• 25.04.2026: Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court quashed the Employees’ Act in Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P. and others (CWP No. 3361 of 2025).
• 2026: Present writ petition (CWP No. 9232 of 2026) filed seeking quashing of the Employees’ Act and the impugned order.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. Quashing of Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Employees’ Act as unconstitutional and arbitrary.
2. Quashing of the Office Order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-12) rejecting her representation.
3. A direction to the respondents to regularize her service as Staff Nurse from January 2006, along with all consequential financial benefits.
4. Declaration of any seniority list drawn under the Employees’ Act as null and void.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 were unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice, and whether the rejection of the petitioner’s representation under the impugned Act warranted interference by the High Court.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner relied on the judgment in Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P. and others (CWP No. 3361 of 2025), wherein the Employees’ Act was quashed as unconstitutional. It was argued that the impugned order rejecting her representation was based on a void statute and thus deserved to be set aside. The petitioner further contended that her contractual service from January 2006 should be regularized in light of the Court’s directions in the aforementioned judgment.

For the Respondents

The respondents, represented by the Advocate General and Deputy Advocate General, did not contest the petition on merits. Instead, they waived service of notice and agreed to the disposal of the petition in terms of the Court’s directions.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the Employees’ Act had already been quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P. and others. The judgment in that case held that the Act was unconstitutional and arbitrary, and all actions taken under it were declared illegal and nullified. The Court noted:

"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)."

Applying the ratio of the judgment in Devinder Kumar, the Court held that the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-12) rejecting the petitioner’s representation was based on a void statute and thus stood quashed. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim afresh, taking into account the provisions of the quashed Act and the judgment in Devinder Kumar.

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:

1. The impugned Office Order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-12) rejecting the petitioner’s representation was quashed and set aside.
2. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order on or before 14.08.2026, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, if desired.
3. The decision so taken was to be immediately supplied to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies for any surviving grievances, including issues not raised in the present petition.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Unconstitutional Statutes Cannot Sustain Actions

• The judgment reinforces that any action taken under an unconstitutional statute is void ab initio. Practitioners should challenge orders, notifications, or directions issued under statutes that have been struck down by courts.
• Employees whose representations have been rejected under the impugned Act can now seek reconsideration of their claims in light of this judgment.

Regularization of Contractual Employees

• The Court’s direction to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for regularization from January 2006 sets a precedent for similarly situated contractual employees. Departments must now re-evaluate claims for regularization in accordance with constitutional mandates and judicial precedents.
• Employees who were denied benefits under the quashed Act can seek restoration of their rights, including seniority, pension, and other financial benefits.

Compliance with Judicial Directions

• The Court’s direction to comply with its orders within a stipulated timeline (14.08.2026) underscores the importance of timely adherence to judicial mandates. Non-compliance may invite contempt proceedings or further judicial intervention.
• Departments must ensure that speaking and reasoned orders are passed while reconsidering claims, failing which such orders may be challenged for non-compliance with principles of natural justice.