IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8553 of 2026 Decided on: 15.06.2026 Uploaded on: 15.06.2026 Madhu Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Annexure P-13, dated 14.11.2025, which is an order passed by Director, Health Services, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in terms whereof, the representation of the petitioner with the prayer of regularization of her services from her initial date of appointment on contract basis stands rejected on account of enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Government Employees Act, 2024. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the fact that recently the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold that the said Act was ultra vires, the impugned order is per se bad. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in 2

light of the adjudication by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, interest of justice would be served in case the Authority concerned is permitted to make a fresh call on the representation which was filed by the petitioner and which stood rejected in terms of Annexure P-13. 5. As the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Authority in light of enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Government Employees Act, 2024 and further, in light of the fact that this Act has been held to be ultra vires by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, this petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-13) with the direction to the Authority to take a fresh call on the representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 15, 2026 (Rishi)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8553 of 2026 Decided on: 15.06.2026 Uploaded on: 15.06.2026 Madhu Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Annexure P-13, dated 14.11.2025, which is an order passed by Director, Health Services, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in terms whereof, the representation of the petitioner with the prayer of regularization of her services from her initial date of appointment on contract basis stands rejected on account of enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Government Employees Act, 2024. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the fact that recently the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold that the said Act was ultra vires, the impugned order is per se bad. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in 2

light of the adjudication by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, interest of justice would be served in case the Authority concerned is permitted to make a fresh call on the representation which was filed by the petitioner and which stood rejected in terms of Annexure P-13. 5. As the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Authority in light of enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Government Employees Act, 2024 and further, in light of the fact that this Act has been held to be ultra vires by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, this petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-13) with the direction to the Authority to take a fresh call on the representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 15, 2026 (Rishi)