High Court confirms that directions from the prior decision in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma v. H.P. University, regarding arrears of Secretariat Pay due after retirement, apply equally to other similarly situated petitioners. The Court upholds existing precedent, offering binding value within its jurisdiction, and directly adopts the logic of earlier adjudication for all analogous cases involving Himachal Pradesh University employees.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/5140/2025 of PURAN CHAND SHARMA Vs THE HPU AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HPHC010599832024 |
| Date of Registration | 05-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh; follows and affirms prior High Court and Supreme Court authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Dr. Hem Raj Sharma v. H.P. University (CWP No. 6284/2024, decided 12.09.2025) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Labour Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether H.P. University employees are entitled to arrears of Secretariat Pay for the post-retirement period and whether previous High Court directions on this issue apply equally to other employees in similar situations. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The High Court adopted the reasoning and directions given in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma, approved the application of those directions to similarly placed petitioners, and cited Supreme Court precedent affirming this approach. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Multiple petitioners, all employees of H.P. University, challenged orders denying them arrears of Secretariat Pay after their retirement. Previous High Court and Supreme Court rulings were cited to claim such arrears. Respondents did not oppose, and agreed the issue was covered by the Dr. Hem Raj Sharma decision, which had allowed similar arrears claims for the post-superannuation period. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh; Himachal Pradesh University and similarly placed government bodies executing Secretariat Pay orders. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and similar institutions nationwide, especially in service-related pay matters. |
| Follows | Dr. Hem Raj Sharma v. H.P. University (CWP No. 6284/2024); State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva (2015, 2021). |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court expressly directs that its ruling in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma applies mutatis mutandis to all similarly placed petitioners—mandating uniform relief without need for fresh arguments.
- Failure to pay arrears of Secretariat Pay within six weeks will result in a 5% per annum interest obligation for the University.
- Non-opposition by the respondent University reinforces the binding nature of the precedent on identical issues.
- Service law practitioners may cite this order as binding authority for post-retirement arrears claims arising under similar facts.
- The judgment underscores the efficiency and consistency of judicial decisions in cases raising identical questions of law and fact.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted that all the writ petitions raised almost identical legal and factual issues regarding arrears of Secretariat Pay due after retirement from Himachal Pradesh University.
- The petitioners sought quashing of specific University orders and directions for full arrears, relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva and its follow-up (2021), as well as the High Court’s decision in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma.
- All parties, including the University and the State, accepted that the questions raised were covered by the prior High Court decision in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma.
- The Court extracted and adopted the operative portion of that prior judgment, ordering the University to pay arrears for the period post-superannuation until actual payment, within six weeks, or else pay 5% per annum interest.
- The rationale was that identical legal principles and facts necessitated application of the previous precedent, ensuring uniform treatment of similarly situated employees.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Reliefs and grievances are identical to those in the previously decided case of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma.
- Requested the Court to issue directions in line with that earlier precedent.
- Relied on Supreme Court authority concerning payment of arrears to government employees.
Respondents (University and State)
- University expressly stated it had no objection if the present petitions were decided in accordance with Dr. Hem Raj Sharma.
- The State’s legal representatives confirmed that no reply would be filed and did not oppose adoption of prior directions.
Factual Background
The petitioners, all former employees of Himachal Pradesh University, filed writ petitions seeking quashing of University orders that denied them arrears of Secretariat Pay after their retirement. Their claim cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments in support of entitlement to arrears from the date of retirement until actual payment. The University did not file replies and acknowledged that the issues raised had already been settled in the case of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma v. H.P. University, to which the petitioners sought analogous relief.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced and applied Supreme Court judgments interpreting relevant service law principles regarding payment of arrears to government/university employees post-retirement.
- While explicit statutory sections are not detailed in the judgment, the jurisprudential basis comes from prior judicial interpretation in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva (2015, 2021).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; the decision is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment adopts a streamlined approach for disposal of multiple writ petitions with identical issues by applying the earlier precedent mutatis mutandis, without requiring separate factual analysis for each case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies existing High Court precedent and follows Supreme Court authority regarding entitlement of arrears to university employees after retirement.