The High Court reaffirmed that where authorities have retrospectively regularized service and released all monetary arrears, the writ petition seeking such relief becomes infructuous and is liable to be disposed of accordingly. This judgment restates and follows established jurisprudence in the context of public service regularization and arrear payment disputes, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh in similar matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWPOA/940/2019 of Het Ram Vs State of H.P |
| CNR | HPHC010343742019 |
| Date of Registration | 30-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Ranjan Sharma) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority in Himachal Pradesh for cases on retrospective regularization and release of arrears |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing practice; does not overrule any precedent |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Public Employment—Regularization & Arrears) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a petition seeking regularization and arrears survives when authorities have granted both reliefs |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that since the State authorities have regularized the petitioners retrospectively and released all arrears of salary in two instalments, nothing further survives in the writ petition. The proceedings were accordingly disposed of, as the factual claim was satisfied. A fair concession by the petitioner’s counsel acknowledging full satisfaction was noted. This principle operates to prevent unnecessary continuance of cases where relief is rendered academic by compliance. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Practical disposal based on satisfaction of claim; no further legal reasoning cited. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners had earlier been regularized from 19.09.2012, later revised to 27.10.2009. Full arrears were paid in two instalments by the State. Petitioner’s counsel conceded that all dues were settled and nothing survived in the case. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar service matters, especially concerning infructuous relief |
| Follows | Established procedure for disposal when relief is provided during pendency of proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that once all dues are settled and factual relief granted, the writ petition is rendered infructuous.
- Counsel’s concession regarding satisfaction of claims can be recorded as basis for disposing of the case.
- Lawyers should promptly verify release of arrears and secure client instructions to avoid unnecessary continuation of proceedings.
- Sets a clear practice precedent for summary disposal in regularization and arrear payment disputes upon compliance by authorities.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the latest instructions from State authorities that confirmed retrospective regularization and full payment of arrears to both petitioners.
- Upon Court’s query, counsel for the petitioners conceded that the dues had been received and no dispute remained.
- The Court took judicial notice of the satisfaction of claim and held that the petition had been rendered infructuous.
- Applied a pragmatic approach: once relief is satisfied pending litigation, no orders on merits are called for.
- No detailed legal analysis or reliance on prior authorities was deemed necessary given the facts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Confirmed through counsel that full arrears and regularization benefits had been received.
- Admitted there was no surviving grievance in the petition.
Respondent (State)
- Furnished instructions showing arrears and retrospective regularization had been implemented and payments made in two instalments.
Factual Background
The petitioners, Het Ram and Nant Ram, had initially been granted regularization in service from 19.09.2012. On reconsideration, the State authorities modified the order to grant retrospective regularization from 27.10.2009. In consequence, all salary arrears were computed and released to the petitioners in two instalments. During the pendency of the writ petition seeking such relief, it was confirmed that the payments had been credited to the petitioners, leading to declaration of the petition as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment did not explicitly discuss or interpret any statutory provisions; the decision was based on facts relating to service regularization orders and payment of arrears.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the order was by a single judge, Justice Ranjan Sharma.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, guidelines or directions were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law/practice for disposing of infructuous petitions on satisfaction of relief affirmed.