Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kapil Dev Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 25 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
2026:HHC:4329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP Nos.13265, 13266, 13267
and 13268 of 2025
Date of decision: 25.02.2026
.
__________________________________________________________
1. CWP No.13265 of 2025
Kapil Dev Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents
2. CWP No.13266 of 2025
of
Attar Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents
3.
rt
CWP No.13267 of 2025
Nirman Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents
AND
4. CWP No.13268 of 2025
Jitender Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, in all the petitions.
For the respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional, Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS2026:HHC:4329 2 Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.3-H.P. Sub-ordinate Services Selection Commission [now H.P. Rajya Chayan Aayog], in all the petitions.
.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) In all these petitions, apart from certain other prayers/issues in some of petitions, there is a common prayer related to common question of law and fact arising grievance on of account of issuance of office order dated 17.03.2025. Therefore, keeping all other issues and prayers open, to be adjudicated in fresh petitions, if any filed by petitioners, these petitions are rt being decided by this common order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners in all these petitions were aggrieved by impugned office order No. EDN-H(19)B(1)-6/2010- 11-Court Case dated 17.03.2025 [Annexure P-3, in all the petitions], whereby, after enactment of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024, certain service benefits were withdrawn by the respondents and, resultantly, already extended service benefits to the employees were withdrawn, whereas claim of other similarly situated employees for the same benefits were rejected by passing common/separate orders but on the basis of Office Order dated 17.03.2025.
::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS2026:HHC:4329 3
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that now by passing subsequent Office Order No.EDN-H(19)B(1)-6/2010-11-Court Cases dated 10.09.2025, .
the impugned Office Order dated 17.03.2025 has been declared to be infructuous and withdrawn with immediate effect by the concerned Authority and it has been explained and reiterated by the Director of School Education by issuing Office Order No.EDN-H(19)B(1)-6/2010-11-Court cases dated 10.9.2025, of which is as under:-
"No. EDN-H(19)B(1)-6/2010-11-Court cases dated 10 Sep 2025 rt Directorate of School Education Himachal Pradesh Dated Shimla-171001, OFFICE ORDER Whereas, the Principal Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh conveyed the approval to fill up 1404 posts of Lecturer (School cadre) in various subjects on Whereas, the Principal Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal contract basis vide Leller No.EDN-A-Kha(1)-72005-L dated 11.7.2008 and 23.09.2008. The requisition was placed to recruiting agencies on 11.08.2008 and 03.10.2008.
And whereas, these posts were advertised by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board Hamirpur vide advertisement No. 13/2008 dated 28.08.2008 and advertisement No. 14/2009 dated 17.02.2009. The provision of contract appointment was notified in R&P Rules of Lecturer (School Cadre) on 25.06.2009. Feeling aggrieved petitioners filed various court cases and in CWPOA No.1695 of 2019 titled as Ajay Kumar Thakur & Others Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others wherein The Hon'ble High Court on dated 04.10.2024 has ordered as under: -
18. Considering the above factual position, the present petition is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of deemed regular appointment to the petitioner, with effect from the date of their initial appointment/joining, on contract basis along with ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS 2026:HHC:4329 4 all consequential benefits, however, monitory benefits are restricted ta a period of three years immediately preceding to the date of filling of the petition. Costs of the petition are assessed as Rs.5000/-
19. it is made clear that the outstanding .
amount, as ordered, be released to the petitioners, within a period of two months from today, failing which the respondents shall be liable, not only to pay the amount, in question, but, also interest there upon, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the Date of their entitlement i.e. 3 years proceeding to the date of filing of petition till its realization.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand of disposed of.
And whereas, the matter was taken up with the Government and it has been conveyed vide Letter No. EDN-B- B(12)-1/2024 dated 13.12.2024 that the instant matter are not rt different from relied upon cases. However, after enforcement of The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment And Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No.23 of 2025) the claim of petitioners were rejected vide speaking order dated:
17.03.2025 and compliance affidavit were filed in Hon'ble High Court the Ex. Pet. No. 13/2025 was listed before Hon'ble High court on 03.07.2025 and following orders were passed:-
A perusal of the judgment passed by the Court demonstrates that a mandamus was issued by the Court directing the respondents to extend the benefit of deemed regular appointment to the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial appointment/joining on contract basis, along-with all consequential benefits, though monetary benefits were restricted to three years preceding the filing of the petition.
The grievance of the petitioners was that at the time when they were appointed contract basis there was no provision of contract appointment in the R & P Rules.
A perusal of the compliance affidavit demonstrates that rather than implementing the judgment, the respondents are now construing as if a direction was passed by the Court to consider the case of the petitioners, which is complete misreading of directions passed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench. Be that as it may, on the request of learned ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS 2026:HHC:4329 5 Additional Advocate General, the case is ordered to be listed on 21.07.2025, by which date either the judgment be implemented in letter and spirit, as the same has attained finality, failing the Officer concerned shall remain present in the Court to assist the Court as to what is the impediment in implementing the judgment passed by the Court.
.
On 21.07.2025 following orders were passed:-
Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to ensure the presence of the Secretary Education in the Court on the next date, so that the Court can discuss certain issues with him with regard to the implementation of the judgments of matters pertaining to the Education Department.
of In view of above orders the matter was again taken up with the Govt. and since the legal issue of applicability of the HPRCS Act was involved, the matter was referred to Ld. Advocate General and it rt has been advised the above judgment is not covered by the Act. 2024. The petitioner in CWPOA1695 of 2019 were allowed regular appointment from date of joining on contract vide speaking orders dated 18.08.2025 the remaining lecturers recruited against these 1404 posts are also to be given regular appointment as detailed below:-
Sr. Name of candidate DOB Category Subject Date of
No. and Address appointment order
1. Akshay Kumar ..... ...... ..... .....
Now therefore, in view of facts and circumstances and in compliance of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWPOA No. 1695 of 2019 tiled as Ajay Kumar Thakur & Others, the speaking order dated: 17-03-2025 have become infructuous and petitioners and non petitioners who have joined on contract are hereby considered as regular employees of the State in the pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+4200 Grade Pay + allowances as admissible from time to time from the date when they were initially appointed/joined on contract basis with all consequential benefits.
The Principal/DDO concerned are hereby directed to release the monetary benefits only from three years proceeding to the date of filing the petition as per Hon'ble High Court order and also make necessary entries in the service book of the individual concerned.
May inform the parties accordingly.::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS
2026:HHC:4329 6 Sd/-
Director of School Education Himachal Pradesh Shimla-1."
4. Petitioners in these petitions are at Sr. Nos.660, 208, 646 and 321, respectively.
.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in view of aforesaid Office Orders dated 10th September, 2025, grievance(s) of the petitioners arisen on account of Office Order dated 17.03.2025 stand redressed and, therefore, nothing of survives to be adjudicated on this issue except for issuing direction to the respondents to restore and extend admissible rt service benefits to the petitioners in a time bound manner.
6. Accordingly, respondents are directed to ensure restoration of service benefits immediately which were already extended but withdrawn vide Office Order dated 17.03.2025 and also to extend similar benefits to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons on or before 30th June, 2026 on the same analogy in aforesaid terms in sequel to judgments of the Court(s) as well as decision taken by the respondents as notified vide Office Order dated 10th September, 2025.
7. We have disposed of these writ petitions with respect to grievance of the petitioners on account of Office Order dated 17.03.2025, but without adjudicating any other claim/ issue/prayer raised by the parties, for which the parties shall ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS 2026:HHC:4329 7 have the right to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if so required and desired.
Petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending applications, if any.
.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) of Judge February 25, 2026 [Bhardwaj] rt ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 20:30:56 :::CIS