When an administrative order withdrawing previously granted service benefits is itself withdrawn as infructuous, the High Court holds that all such withdrawn benefits must be restored and extended to similarly situated persons in a time-bound manner, in line with earlier judicial pronouncements. This decision reiterates and applies existing precedent; it serves as binding authority for subordinate courts and government authorities in service matters relating to the withdrawal and consequent restoration of benefits due to reversal of executive orders.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6199/2025 of RANJANA Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010192412025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, J. and Romesh Verma, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the executive authority must restore withdrawn service benefits and extend the same to similarly situated persons when the basis for withdrawal—an office order—is later withdrawn as infructuous. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where an office order withdrawing service benefits after a change in the law is itself withdrawn and declared infructuous, authorities are bound to restore previously withdrawn service benefits and extend similar benefits to all eligible or similarly situated persons in a time-bound manner, according to prior judicial decisions and government notifications. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Directions and clarifications issued by Directorate of School Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh, legal opinion of the Learned Advocate General, previous High Court orders on deemed regularisation and service benefits, and official communications. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged the withdrawal of previously granted service benefits via Office Order dated 28.03.2025, following enactment of HP Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. Subsequently, the impugned office order was withdrawn via orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, with explicit directions from the Directorate and Government of HP to restore benefits and implement analogous High Court judgments. The Court directed compliance by 30th November 2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh and all authorities administering Government Employees’ service matters in HP. |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in other States, government authorities handling service benefit withdrawals and restorations, and tribunals addressing analogous administrative withdrawal cases. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court affirms that when an executive order withdrawing service benefits is itself withdrawn, authorities must restore and extend relevant service benefits in accordance with judicial pronouncements and government clarifications.
- Compliance with existing judgments is mandatory and cannot be reopened on grounds of newly enacted service law, if the original judgments/benefits had already attained finality and were accepted by the State long before the law’s enactment.
- Lawyers should note that authorities are required to act promptly to restore such benefits within stipulated timelines, failing which personal accountability of officers is envisaged.
- Directions on compliance reporting set a standard for future matters regarding restoration of withdrawn service entitlements post-executive reversal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitions stemmed from grievance over withdrawal of service benefits by an Office Order dated 28.03.2025, issued in view of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- Subsequently, the impugned order was withdrawn as infructuous by Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025.
- The Directorate clarified that judgments regarding deemed regularisation and service benefits were not affected by the new Act, since such judgments had attained finality and were accepted by the State over a decade earlier.
- Legal opinion obtained from the Advocate General confirmed that settled judgments are not to be reopened due to the new service law.
- Following these developments and government communications, the Court directed immediate restoration of withdrawn benefits and extension to similarly situated persons, with compliance to be ensured and reported.
- The Court did not adjudicate any other issues raised in the petitions, keeping such claims open for separate remedy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Aggrieved by withdrawal of previously granted service benefits via Office Order dated 28.03.2025.
- Sought restoration of those service benefits and extension of similar relief to others in the same category, pursuant to earlier court decisions.
Respondents (State / Government):
- Noted that the impugned office order had been withdrawn via subsequent orders, making the earlier basis of grievance infructuous.
- Confirmed government intent to comply with judicial pronouncements and legal advice issued by the Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh.
Factual Background
The petitions originated from various employees whose service benefits, previously granted pursuant to existing judicial pronouncements, were withdrawn by an executive order on 28.03.2025, following the enactment of a new State service law. After legal and administrative review, this basis was rescinded by subsequent office orders, and directions were issued for compliance with settled legal standards concerning restoration of benefits aligned with earlier High Court rulings.
Statutory Analysis
- The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 was acknowledged as the legislative context for the challenged withdrawal order.
- Directorates and government communications clarified that the new Act does not affect judicially settled cases or service benefits conferred pursuant to final court judgments that predate the Act’s enactment.
- No expansive or restrictive reading was applied; the statutory analysis focused on the non-applicability of the Act to previously settled cases.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the order is a joint Division Bench pronouncement.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court set a clear precedent for restoration and extension of administrative benefits following withdrawal of an infructuous executive order.
- Incorporated reporting requirements and individual officer accountability for non-compliance with the court’s directions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and enforces principles already established by the High Court in previous decisions regarding restoration of service benefits when executive withdrawal orders are rescinded.