SC setback prompts Sukhu government to convene high-level meeting on contractual employees’ benefits; up to 40,000 may gain directly

The Himachal Pradesh government has convened a high-level meeting under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to examine the implications of a High Court judgment on consequential service benefits of contractual employees, after failing to secure relief from the Supreme Court. The judgment could directly benefit an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 contractual employees, while its wider impact is estimated to extend to nearly 1.50 lakh people.

The Department of Personnel issued an urgent meeting notice on November 2, asking all administrative secretaries to attend the meeting scheduled for November 3 at 11.30 am in the Committee Room of the HP Secretariat, Armsdale Building, Shimla. The meeting has been convened to discuss the implications of the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment dated April 25, 2026, in CWP No. 3361 of 2025 and connected matters, bearing citation 2026:HHC:13536.

The dispute originated when 445 contractual employees approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking consequential service benefits by challenging the government’s restrictions on benefits arising from their contractual service.

The High Court, in its judgment in *Devinder Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another*, examined provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. The legislation had sought to regulate the recruitment and service conditions of government employees, but its provisions were challenged on the ground that they attempted to take away benefits recognised through earlier judicial pronouncements.

“The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the entire Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, holding that the legislation violated the constitutional framework and interfered with the judicial domain. In its operative directions, the court also quashed consequential actions taken under the Act and directed the competent authorities to extend service benefits in accordance with applicable judicial pronouncements within three months.”

The State government subsequently challenged the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24885 of 2026. However, the apex court declined to interfere with the judgment on July 29, 2026, leaving the High Court’s directions undisturbed. The Supreme Court also granted the State four months to comply with the directions.

The government then filed a review petition, seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s July 29 order. The attempt also failed when a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 56882/2026 on October 27, 2026. While condoning the delay in filing the petition, the bench rejected the State’s request for an oral hearing and observed that it found no error, much less an apparent error, warranting review of its earlier order.

Following the dismissal of the review petition, the Department of Personnel issued the November 2 meeting notice, convening all administrative secretaries under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to take a considered view on the implications of the High Court judgment.

The potential impact extends well beyond the 445 original petitioners. According to rough estimates, around 30,000 to 40,000 contractual employees across various government departments could directly benefit, depending on their eligibility and the applicability of the judicial directions. The indirect impact is estimated at nearly 1.50 lakh people, reflecting the wider reach of the service and financial benefits involved.

The meeting assumes importance as the government will have to examine the categories of employees covered, the nature of consequential benefits and the financial implications of implementing the judgment. The notice, issued by the Department of Personnel (AP-III) and signed by Under Secretary (Personnel) Ved Prakash, does not specify the proposals to be considered or the decisions likely to emerge from the deliberations.

The proceedings have brought the government’s contractual recruitment policy and its subsequent legislative response under renewed judicial and administrative scrutiny. With the Supreme Court having declined to interfere with the High Court judgment and subsequently dismissed the review petition, the State will now have to consider its administrative response within the limits of the subsisting judicial directions.

The outcome of the Chief Secretary-led meeting is likely to be closely watched by thousands of contractual employees whose claims for consequential service benefits have remained entangled in prolonged litigation.

The estimates of 30,000–40,000 direct beneficiaries and 1.50 lakh people indirectly affected are attributed to rough assessments, not to figures specified in the court judgment or the meeting notice.