Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, August 8
Reaffirming its approach towards protection of service benefits attached to contractual service, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed a contractual employee to provisionally count his past contractual service for determining his eligibility to apply for the post of Section Officer.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma passed the interim order on August 3 in CWP No. 13151 of 2026, filed by Ashutosh against the State of Himachal Pradesh and others, including the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC).
The Court’s order assumes importance in the backdrop of a series of service matters in which the High Court has examined whether contractual service rendered before regularisation can be completely ignored for determining service benefits and eligibility.
Ashutosh had contended that although he was initially appointed on contract, his appointment was not a backdoor or irregular appointment but was made after following the recruitment process prescribed under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules. After his subsequent regularisation, he claimed that the contractual period was required to be taken into consideration for service-related benefits wherever permissible in law.
The immediate controversy arose over his eligibility for selection to the post of Section Officer. The applicable requirement prescribed three years of regular service. The petitioner had not completed three years of regular service, but claimed that his contractual service of two years and four months, when counted along with his regular service, would make him eligible for consideration.
Also Read
Himachal High Court upholds Pension Rights for Contractual employees
The matter became urgent after the HPPSC issued an advertisement on July 9, 2026. The petitioner was required to upload an eligibility certificate/NOC along with his online application. According to him, the certificate had not been issued and, consequently, the online system was not accepting his application. The last date for submitting applications was August 5.
Considering the short deadline, the Bench directed the State authorities to issue a provisional eligibility certificate/NOC by August 4, enabling the petitioner to submit his application. The Court further directed that his candidature be considered provisionally and that he be permitted to appear in the Section Officer examination, if it was conducted before the next date of hearing.
However, the Bench expressly clarified that such participation would remain subject to further orders of the Court and that the interim arrangement would not create any equity in favour of the petitioner.
The matter has now been listed for September 17, 2026.
The order is particularly relevant because the High Court has, in its recent service jurisprudence, repeatedly examined the consequences of contractual appointments followed by regularisation. The central question has been whether employees who entered government service through a prescribed recruitment procedure can be deprived of the benefit of the service they actually rendered merely because their initial appointment was described as contractual.
The present order does not finally decide the petitioner’s entitlement to count the entire contractual period for the three-year eligibility condition. Rather, the Court has preserved his right to participate in the selection provisionally while keeping the substantive issue open for adjudication.
The order therefore provides immediate relief without finally determining the petitioner’s claim. It also indicates that the distinction between contractual and regular service cannot necessarily be treated as conclusive where the initial appointment itself was made through the prescribed recruitment mechanism and the employee was subsequently regularised.
The issue assumes wider significance for contractual employees in Himachal Pradesh because several government departments have historically relied extensively on contractual appointments before subsequently regularising employees. The question of whether such employees can be denied service benefits attached to their earlier contractual tenure has remained a recurring subject of litigation.
The latest order reinforces the need for the State to examine contractual service in the context of the manner of appointment, the applicable R&P Rules and subsequent regularisation rather than treating the word “contractual” alone as sufficient to exclude the period from consideration.
The final entitlement of Ashutosh to have his contractual period counted for Section Officer eligibility, however, remains open and will be considered by the Court in the pending proceedings.
About the Author
