The Himachal Pradesh High Court has affirmed that persons with disabilities appointed on contractual or temporary basis must be granted regular appointment from their initial date of service, following the invalidation of a state law that sought to override their statutory rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. This ruling reinforces the supremacy of central disability legislation and binding precedents of the Court and Supreme Court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners in these consolidated writ petitions are persons with disabilities who were engaged by the State of Himachal Pradesh or its instrumentalities on temporary, contractual, or daily wage basis. They sought regularization of their services with effect from their initial date of appointment, invoking the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and prior judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court. Their claims were rejected by the State on the ground of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025), which purported to override existing service conditions and deny seniority and regularization benefits to temporary employees.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were appointed on temporary or contractual basis between 2010 and 2023 in various government departments and public sector undertakings including HPSEBL
- All petitioners have been certified as persons with disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016
- The State, through Office Orders dated between 2020 and 2025, denied regularization on the ground that the impugned Act of 2024 classified their service as non-qualifying
- The petitioners filed multiple writ petitions between 2025 and 2026 before the High Court seeking regularization from date of initial appointment
- The State relied exclusively on the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 to justify rejection
Procedural History
- 2024: Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) enacted and notified
- 2025: Multiple writ petitions filed by petitioners challenging denial of regularization
- 25.04.2026: Coordinate Bench of this Court in Devinder Kumar & Others v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 3361 of 2025) quashed the 2024 Act as unconstitutional
- 11.05.2026: Present petitions heard together and decided by a Division Bench
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that:
- The RPwD Act, 2016 mandates reasonable accommodation and preferential treatment in government employment
- The Supreme Court in Nitin Kumar v. State of H.P. (CWP(OA) No. 1077 of 2019) and this Court in Umesh Jaswal v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 5090 of 2022) and Pushpa Devi v. Himachal Pradesh University (CWP No. 4299 of 2019) had already held that service from initial date must be counted for regularization
- The 2024 Act was enacted to circumvent these binding judgments and violated Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution
- The Act was ultra vires the RPwD Act, 2016, which is a central legislation enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution
For the Respondent-State
The State contended that:
- The 2024 Act was a valid legislative exercise to standardize recruitment and service conditions across departments
- The Act did not discriminate against persons with disabilities but applied uniformly to all temporary employees
- The prior judgments were distinguishable as they pertained to specific facts and did not override statutory enactments
- The Act had been implemented in good faith and its repeal would cause administrative chaos
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Declaration that the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 is unconstitutional and void
- Direction to regularize their services with effect from the date of initial appointment
- Inclusion of their entire service period for calculation of pension, seniority, and other benefits
- Payment of arrears of salary and allowances from the date of initial appointment
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State of Himachal Pradesh could enact a law that denies persons with disabilities the right to regularization from their initial date of service, in direct conflict with the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and binding judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the binding precedent of Nitin Kumar v. State of H.P., Umesh Jaswal v. State of H.P., and Pushpa Devi v. Himachal Pradesh University, which held that service rendered by persons with disabilities on temporary basis must be counted for regularization under the RPwD Act, 2016. They emphasized that Section 34 of the RPwD Act mandates that the State shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against in matters of employment and that reasonable accommodation includes regularization of service. The petitioners argued that the 2024 Act was a colourable legislation designed to nullify these judgments and violated the principle of stare decisis. They further contended that the Act was inconsistent with the central law and thus void under Article 254 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the 2024 Act was a comprehensive legislative framework to bring uniformity in recruitment and service conditions. It claimed that the Act did not target persons with disabilities but applied equally to all temporary employees. The State further submitted that the judgments cited by petitioners were not on point because they dealt with individual cases and did not invalidate a general statute. It also raised concerns about administrative feasibility and financial burden if regularization were to be granted retrospectively.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that the judgment in Devinder Kumar & Others v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 3361 of 2025), delivered on 25.04.2026, had already declared the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 as unconstitutional, void, and non est in law. The Court observed:
"The impugned Act is quashed and set aside. All consequential action, omission and commission of the respondents-State and its functionaries, based on the impugned Act, are declared illegal, unconstitutional and nullified."
The Court held that the reasoning in that judgment applied mutatis mutandis to the present petitions. It emphasized that the RPwD Act, 2016 is a welfare legislation enacted to fulfill India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Court noted that the State’s attempt to override this central law through a state enactment was a clear violation of the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254. The Court further held that the prior judgments were not mere observations but authoritative interpretations of statutory rights under the RPwD Act, which the State was bound to follow.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Act applied uniformly, stating that uniformity cannot override the constitutional and statutory obligation to provide affirmative action for persons with disabilities. It held that denying regularization from the date of initial appointment effectively nullified the benefit of reservation and reasonable accommodation guaranteed under the RPwD Act. The Court also dismissed the administrative convenience argument, noting that the State had already been on notice since 2019 through the Nitin Kumar judgment and had ample time to comply.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court quashed and set aside all office orders rejecting the petitioners’ claims on the basis of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. The Court directed the competent authorities to reconsider the regularization claims of all petitioners afresh, taking into account the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 and the binding judgments cited, and to pass speaking orders by 30.06.2026. The orders must include regularization from the date of initial appointment, inclusion of entire service period for pension and seniority, and payment of arrears of salary and allowances from the date of initial engagement. The State was directed to communicate the final orders to petitioners within seven days of issuance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regularization Cannot Be Denied Under State Laws Contrary to RPwD Act
- Practitioners must now argue that any state law attempting to override the RPwD Act’s regularization mandate is void under Article 254
- The burden shifts to the State to prove that its law does not conflict with central disability legislation
- Denial of regularization based on temporary status alone is now legally unsustainable for persons with disabilities
Precedents Bind the State Even Without Specific Litigation
- The Nitin Kumar, Umesh Jaswal, and Pushpa Devi judgments are not confined to their facts - they establish a binding legal principle
- Government departments cannot ignore these judgments by invoking new rules or circulars
- Any future denial of regularization must be accompanied by a reasoned order explicitly distinguishing these precedents
Compliance Deadlines Are Enforceable
- Courts are now setting clear timelines (e.g., 30.06.2026) for implementation of disability rights
- Failure to comply may attract contempt proceedings
- Petitioners may now file execution applications for arrears and interest if orders are delayed beyond the stipulated date
