The High Court of Himachal Pradesh struck down the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 as ultra vires the Constitution, while clarifying that petitioners appointed on contract basis are entitled to seniority from their initial appointment date but monetary relief is restricted to three years preceding the petition due to delay and laches. The judgment follows an earlier decision quashing the same Act and applies principles of service jurisprudence to consequential benefits such as increments, pension, and regularization.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Lecturers (School New) appointed on contract basis, challenged the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) and sought consequential benefits including seniority, increments, pension, and regularization w.e.f. 01-04-2018 by counting their entire contract service from the date of initial appointment.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were appointed as Post Graduate Teachers (Informatics Practices and Commerce) on contract basis vide Office Order dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) at a minimum pay of ₹10,300 + Grade Pay ₹4,200 (₹14,500 per month).
- Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the Higher Education Department, Post Graduate Teacher Class-III (Non-Gazetted) were framed vide Notification dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) and amended vide Notification dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P-3).
- Advertisement No.22/2011 dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) invited applications for 767 posts of PGT (Informatics Practices) under Post Code 311.
- Upon completion of three years of continuous contractual service as on 31.03.2018, contract services were regularized w.e.f. 02.06.2018 vide Office Order dated 02.06.2018 (Annexure P-5).
- The impugned Act (Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024) was enacted as Act No. 23 of 2025.
- In CWP No.3361 of 2025 titled Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P and others, judgment dated 25.04.2026 held the Act ultra vires, quashed and set aside it, and declared all actions taken under it illegal, unconstitutional and null and void.
- The present petition (CWP No.1912 of 2026) was filed in February 2026, reserved on 14.07.2026, and decided on 16.09.2026.
- The petitioners did not raise any grievance until filing the present petition, invoking the doctrine of laches.
- The Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 (Taj Mohammad and Others v. State of H.P.) decided on 03.08.2023 attained finality after dismissal of SLPs and review petition.
- A Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 715 laid down principles on seniority counting from date of appointment.
Procedural History
- 20.09.2010: Notification framing Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure P-1).
- 16.08.2011: Amendment to Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure P-3).
- 13.12.2011: Advertisement No.22/2011 for 767 PGT posts (Annexure P-3).
- 02.12.2014: Office Order appointing petitioners on contract basis (Annexure P-4).
- 02.06.2018: Office Order regularizing contract services w.e.f. 02.06.2018 (Annexure P-5).
- 25.04.2026: Judgment in Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P (CWP No.3361 of 2025) quashing the impugned Act.
- 14.07.2026: Present petition reserved.
- 16.09.2026: Date of decision.
- February 2026: Petition filed.
- 04.02.2023: Three years prior to filing (commencement of actual monetary benefits).
- 03.08.2023: Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad and Others v. State of H.P (CWP No.2004 of 2017).
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (i) A writ of certiorari to strike down the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 as ultra vires; (ii) A writ of mandamus to grant seniority by counting entire contract service from the date of initial appointment; (iii) A writ of mandamus to count contract service for annual increments, re-fixation of pay, arrears, pension and all consequential service benefits; (iv) A writ of mandamus to regularize the petitioners w.e.f. 01-04-2018 with all consequential benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 is constitutionally valid; and (2) Whether petitioners appointed on contract basis are entitled to seniority and consequential benefits from their initial appointment date, or whether delay and laches restrict such benefits to a limited period.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the impugned Act violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution by creating arbitrary classifications and denying equal protection. They relied on the judgment in Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P (25.04.2026) which had already declared the Act ultra vires. They contended that, under the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., seniority must be counted from the date of initial appointment when appointment is made according to rules. They asserted that laches does not bar relief in a recurring cause of action where the entitlement to pensionary benefits continues to accrue, and that the State is bound to follow judicial pronouncements on consequential benefits.
For the Respondents
The State argued that the petitioners had already been regularized w.e.f. 02.06.2018 as per government instructions, and that any claim for earlier regularization is barred by laches and delay. It maintained that the matter regarding grant of annual increments for the contractual period is pending before the Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 32886 of 2025 (State of H.P. v. Narayan Dutt), and thus the Court should not grant relief that would prejudice pending proceedings. The State further submitted that the petitioners had not challenged their regularization order and therefore are estopped from claiming earlier benefits.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first noted that the validity of the impugned Act had already been settled in the judgment dated 25.04.2026 in Devinder Kumar & others vs State of H.P, wherein it was held ultra vires and set aside. Consequently, all actions taken under the Act were declared illegal and unconstitutional. Turning to the consequential reliefs, the Court examined the principle of seniority from the Five-Judge Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.:
"Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation."
The Court found that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Hence, their seniority must be counted from the initial appointment date of 02.12.2014. However, the Court also considered the doctrine of laches and the recurring nature of the claim for pensionary benefits. It held that, while the entitlement to seniority and consequential benefits arises from the date of appointment, actual monetary benefits are restricted to three years prior to the filing of the petition to prevent stale claims. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled to actual monetary benefits with effect from 04.02.2023 (three years before February 2026), and benefits for the period beyond that date shall be notional only for calculating salary, pensionary benefits, etc. The Court directed the State to ensure extension of benefits in consonance with the judgments of competent Courts, latest by three months from the date of the present judgment (i.e., by 16.12.2026).
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded in part. The Court quashed the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 as ultra vires. It declared that the petitioners are entitled to seniority from their initial appointment date of 02.12.2014. However, actual monetary benefits (including arrears of salary, increments, pension, etc.) are limited to the period from 04.02.2023 (three years prior to the petition). The State is directed to extend all consequential benefits in accordance with judicial pronouncements, latest by 16.12.2026 (three months from the judgment). No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Seniority Dates from Initial Appointment
- When appointment is made according to statutory rules, seniority must be counted from the date of initial appointment, not from confirmation or regularization.
- This principle applies to government employees appointed on contract basis under recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Laches Limits Monetary Relief
- In recurring causes of action for pensionary and retiral benefits, delay and laches may restrict actual monetary benefits to three years preceding the filing of the claim.
- Benefits beyond that period remain notional for calculation purposes but do not create enforceable monetary claims.
Consequential Benefits Follow Judicial Pronouncements
- Once a statutory scheme is struck down as ultra vires, all actions taken thereunder are illegal and the State must align benefits with judgments of competent Courts.
- The State must comply within a reasonable time (here, three months) to avoid further litigation.
