Shimla Nov 14 (Reporter) The Himachal Pradesh government on Thursday filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, challenging the recent Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling that declared the appointment of six Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPS) as "unconstitutional". The petition contests the High Court's November 13 verdict that invalidated the 2006 Himachal Pradesh Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances, Powers, Privileges, and Amenities) Act. The matter is yet to be listed for hearing by the apex court, and its current status remains pending. The move follows the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to strike down the CPS appointments, ruling them void ab initio—null from inception—on grounds of legislative overreach. The High Court found that the Act enabling CPS appointments contravened Article 164(1-A) of the Indian Constitution, which restricts the size of the Council of Ministers to a maximum of 15% of the Legislative Assembly’s strength. According to the court, the CPS' role effectively expanded the ministry by appointing additional officials with duties and privileges akin to those of ministers, violating the constitutional limit. The petition in the Supreme Court reflects the Himachal Pradesh government’s swift response to the ruling, claimed Advocate General Anup Rattan. Speaking to mediapersons, Rattan stated, "The state government has decided to seek relief from the Supreme Court immediately, believing that the High Court’s interpretation requires further legal examination." In its ruling, the High Court cited the Supreme Court’s previous decision in Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam, where a similar law in Assam was invalidated on grounds of legislative incompetence to create an office akin to that of a minister. The High Court observed that although CPS appointments were described as “advisory,” they were allowed access to confidential government files and given the authority to assist ministers closely, effectively performing executive functions. Additionally, the CPSs had privileges such as the right to use state insignia, perks, and allowances normally reserved for ministers, highlighting their functional similarity to cabinet members. The government’s petition before the Supreme Court contends that the CPS appointments were meant to support parliamentary affairs and enhance administrative efficiency, without violating constitutional provisions. It asserts that the High Court’s interpretation may have overlooked the intent behind the legislation and its distinct administrative purpose...////...