Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh government has decided to move the Supreme Court to defend the Employees Act that was introduced to prevent contractual employees from receiving certain service benefits. The Director of Education has been instructed to get the Special Leave Petition (SLP) draft cleared by the Advocate General and file it before the Supreme Court.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court had struck down the Employees Act introduced in 2024 on April 26, 2026. A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ramesh Verma disposed of nearly 450 petitions and directed the state government to ensure all eligible employees receive contractual service benefits in line with previous court rulings within the next three months.
The court observed that while the judiciary generally avoids invalidating an entire law, Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act were directly against the Constitution. The bench said that once these provisions were removed, nothing substantial remained in the law, making the entire Act unconstitutional.
The High Court also quashed all actions taken under the Act, including orders related to reduction or recovery of benefits. The court made it clear that the state legislature does not have the authority to enact laws that completely nullify judicial orders. It termed the Act a violation of the principle of separation of powers and the rule of law.
The court further noted that the legislation was discriminatory as it denied benefits to employees appointed after December 12, 2003, while employees appointed before that date were being granted similar benefits.
Reiterating its stand, the court said that employees appointed through a transparent selection process under the R&P Rules are entitled to seniority and other service benefits based on their previous contractual service after regularisation. The main focus of the dispute remained the Taj Mohammad and Lekh Ram versus Himachal Pradesh cases.
The government had introduced the new law to avoid liabilities worth thousands of crores of rupees. However, after the High Court verdict, the state now has to approach the Supreme Court, as it may not be able to avoid the financial burden without securing a stay on the High Court order.
