Service Law: Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Rejection based on law already declared unconstitutional

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

In the case of Hem Lata and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. (2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed multiple petitions filed by employees seeking regular appointment from their initial date of service under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Case Background and Claims

The petitioners sought regular appointment benefits based on the provisions of the RPwD Act and several prior judicial precedents, such as Nitin Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Pushpa Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh University. Their claims had been previously rejected by the State authorities based on the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025).

Quashing of the 2024 Act

The Court noted that the constitutionality of the 2024 Act had already been adjudicated in the landmark judgment of Devinder Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. (April 2026). In that ruling, the Act was quashed and set aside as unconstitutional. Consequently:

  • All actions, omissions, or orders by the State—including those denying benefits or proposing recoveries—based on the quashed 2024 Act were declared illegal, unconstitutional, and null.
  • The specific office orders that had rejected the petitioners’ claims were quashed and set aside.

Conclusion and Final Order

The High Court disposed of the petitions with the following instructions to the State authorities:

  • Fresh Reconsideration: The Competent Authority is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ claims afresh, specifically applying the provisions of the RPwD Act and binding judicial precedents.
  • Deadline for Decision: A reasoned and speaking order must be passed by June 30, 2026, after granting the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
  • Survival of Grievances: If any grievances remain after this fresh consideration, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue further legal remedies.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 225

Hem Lata And Others V. State of Himachal Pradesh And Anr. (D.O.J. 11.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Law already declared Unconstitutional – Rejection of petition based on it quashed – Representation

May 13, 2026 No Comments

In the case of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed a challenge to an office order that rejected the petitioner’s claim for service benefits based on the now-defunct Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024,.

Quashing of the 2024 Act

The Court noted that the constitutionality of the 2024 Act (Act No. 23 of 2025) had already been adjudicated in the landmark case of Devinder Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. (April 2026), where the Act was quashed and set aside,. As a result:

  • All actions, instructions, or orders by the State that denied benefits or proposed recoveries based on this Act were declared illegal, unconstitutional, and null.
  • The specific office order rejecting the petitioner’s claim was quashed.

Settled Principles for Service Claims

The Court directed the competent authority to re-evaluate the petitioner’s claim by June 30, 2026, applying five “settled principles of law”,:

  1. Judicial Mandates: Benefits already adjudicated by a court in favor of an employee must be extended, regardless of any internal policies.
  2. Contract Service (without full R&P Rules): Employees appointed on contract without strictly following regular Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules, but later regularized without interruption, are entitled to have that period count toward pensionary and retiral benefits. They receive notional increments for the contract period to determine their last pay drawn, but they do not receive back-arrears or seniority for that time.
  3. Contract Service (with full R&P Rules): Employees appointed via a formal process under Article 309 (open competition with wide publicity) are entitled to all consequential benefits, including financial increments and seniority from their initial date of contract appointment,,.
  4. Financial Restrictions: For recurring claims like pensions, financial benefits may be restricted to three years prior to the date of the claim, unless a specific court order directs otherwise,.
  5. Seniority Claims: Seniority must be decided based on service jurisprudence, taking into account the timing of the claim and the rights of any affected third parties,.

Conclusion

The High Court disposed of the petition with instructions for the State to issue a reasoned, speaking order by the end of June 2026,. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file a fresh petition should any grievances survive after the new decision.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 224

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta V. State of Himachal Pradesh And Ors.(D.O.J. 11.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Next Story

Service Law: Denial of benefits – Statute already declared unconstitutional

May 13, 2026 No Comments

In the case of Shailja Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. (2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed a petition challenging the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025), specifically regarding restrictions on counting contract service for employee benefits.

Challenge to the 2024 Act

The petitioner sought to have the 2024 Act declared null and void to the extent that it restricted the benefit of counting contract service for government employees. However, the Court noted that the constitutionality of this Act had already been adjudicated and the Act was quashed as unconstitutional in the landmark judgment of Devinder Kumar & others vs. State of H.P. (April 2026).

The Court reaffirmed that because the Act was set aside, all consequential actions by the State including orders denying benefits or proposing the recovery of already granted reliefs based on that Act are illegal and nullified.

Settled Principles for Employee Benefits

The Court disposed of the petition by directing that employee grievances must be decided based on five settled legal principles:

  1. Mandatory Compliance with Court Verdicts: Benefits already granted by a court verdict to an employee or category of employees must be extended regardless of any other internal policies.
  2. Contract Service (without full R&P Rules): For employees regularized after contract service that did not strictly follow regular Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) procedures, the contract period counts toward pensionary and retiral benefits. They are entitled to notional increments for that period to determine their last pay drawn, though this period does not count toward seniority.
  3. Contract Service (with full R&P Rules): Employees appointed on a contract basis through a formal process under Article 309 (open competition with wide publicity) are entitled to all consequential benefits, including financial increments and seniority from their initial date of appointment.
  4. Financial Restrictions: For recurring claims like pensions, back-arrears may be restricted to three years prior to the claim, unless a specific court order directs otherwise.
  5. Seniority Consideration: Seniority claims must be decided based on service jurisprudence, taking into account when the claim was made and the rights of any affected third parties.

Conclusion and Timeline

The petition was disposed of with the following instructions:

  • The petitioner is permitted to file a representation to the Director of School Education by May 30, 2026.
  • The Director must pass a reasoned, speaking order on the representation by July 15, 2026, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 223

Shailja Sharma V. State of Himachal Pradesh And Anr. (D.O.J. 11.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Withdrawal of a criminal prosecution: Accused has no locus standi

May 13, 2026 No Comments

In the case of Sunita Devi and Another vs. State of H.P. & Another (2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed whether an accused person has the legal standing to challenge a court’s refusal to allow the withdrawal of a criminal prosecution,.

Case Background

The petitioners were accused of offenses under Sections 323, 353, 342, 504, and 506 of the IPC,. The charges stemmed from an incident where they allegedly insulted, threatened, and detained a Process Server who was attempting to serve court summons. Following a compromise between the parties, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) filed an application under Section 321 of the CrPC to withdraw from the prosecution, arguing that continuing the case would disrupt social harmony,. The Trial Court, however, dismissed this application,.

Key Legal Issues and Findings

The High Court dismissed the petitioners’ challenge to the Trial Court’s order based on the following principles:

  • Locus Standi of the Accused: The Court held that a withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC is strictly a matter between the prosecution and the Court,. The accused person has no locus standi (legal right) to challenge or contest an order that refuses to grant consent for withdrawal,,,.
  • Role of the Public Prosecutor: While the Public Prosecutor has the discretion to seek withdrawal, the Court acts as a supervisor to ensure the application is made in good faith and in the interest of public policy, rather than to stifle the law,,.
  • State’s Inaction: The High Court noted that if the State itself does not challenge the refusal of a withdrawal application, it indicates that the State has accepted the order and is no longer interested in withdrawing the case. In such a situation, the accused cannot step in to revive the request.
  • Non-Maintainability: Relying on Supreme Court precedents like V.L.S. Finance Ltd. v. S.P. Gupta, the Court emphasized that accused persons are not permitted to contest withdrawal applications or file documents in support of them,,.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the CrPC was not maintainable because they lacked the standing to interfere in the withdrawal process,,. The petition was dismissed, and the Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the ongoing criminal trial,

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 222

Sunita Devi And Another V. State of H.P. & Another (D.O.J. 11.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Criminal Procedure: Order Placing additional documents on record quashed

May 11, 2026 No Comments

In the case of Sita Ram vs. Ram Kumar Verma and Ors. (2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed a trial court order that had incorrectly allowed an accused to place additional documents on record under Section 311 of the CrPC.

Case Background

The petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC (defamation). Before the evidence phase began, the respondent-accused filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to place on record a copy of a challan, FIR, and other investigation proceedings against the petitioner. The trial court granted this request, which the petitioner then challenged in the High Court.

Key Legal Findings

The High Court set aside the lower court’s order based on several fundamental principles of criminal procedure:

  • Misapplication of Section 311 CrPC: The Court clarified that Section 311 is strictly intended to empower a court to summon, recall, or re-examine witnesses. It does not grant the power to admit additional documentary evidence.
  • Proper Provision for Documents (Section 91): The Court noted that the correct legal mechanism for summoning or producing documents is Section 91 of the CrPC.
  • Timing of Defense Evidence: Crucially, the Court held that an accused cannot invoke Section 91 to produce defense material before the closure of prosecution evidence. The accused has no legal right to file documents at the stage of framing charges or taking cognizance; such evidence must wait until the defense stage of the trial.
  • No “Mini-Trial” at Framing of Charge: Citing the Supreme Court, the High Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, a trial judge should only examine the material provided by the prosecution to determine if a prima facie case exists. The law does not permit a “mini-trial” where the court evaluates the accused’s defense documents at the threshold of the case.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that since the petitioner’s evidence had not even commenced, there was no justification for the trial court to allow the accused to place additional documents on record. The petition was allowed, and the trial court’s order dated November 25, 2023, was quashed.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 221

Sh. Sita Ram V. Sh. Ram Kumar Verma And Ors. (D.O.J. 04.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share

Recent Articles