The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has reaffirmed that where reliefs, issues, and grievances are identical, previously adjudicated judgments must be applied mutatis mutandis to subsequent cases. The Court directed arrears of Secretariat Pay to be paid to retired university employees, following its earlier precedent. This judgment upholds and extends existing precedent, providing clear binding authority for future cases involving the same issue in the education/services sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/7110/2024 of JAGDISH RAM BHARDWAJ Vs HPU AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HPHC010318772024 |
| Date of Registration | 22-07-2024 |
| 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 Bench (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh; clear directive authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and follows earlier decision in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma v. HP University (CWP 6284/2024) |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Service Benefits for Retired University Employees) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where reliefs sought and issues are identical, earlier judgments on the point must be made applicable mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, the relief granted in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma was extended to the present petitioners, directing payment of arrears of Secretariat Pay for the post-retirement period, with the specified interest rate if delayed. The exercise must be completed within six weeks, maintaining consistency and equality in application of judicial decisions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Respondents did not oppose or file reply. The petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 29.01.2024 and 28.05.2024 and sought arrears of Secretariat Pay from the date of retirement, relying on previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Both sides agreed issues were identical to those in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma, and relief should be extended accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and education-related service law matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment provides clear authority for extending directions given in earlier judgments where the issues, facts, and sought reliefs are identical.
- Service law practitioners can rely on this decision to seek uniform application of judicial precedents for similarly situated employees.
- The application of mutatis mutandis principles is explicitly reaffirmed for claims of financial benefits in the education sector.
- Directions for compliance are time-bound, and delayed payments attract specified interest (5% per annum).
- Respondents’ admission of non-opposition is noted as supporting summary application of precedent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the issues and reliefs in the petitions were “almost identical” to previous cases already adjudicated.
- Petitioners and respondents both acknowledged similarity with Dr. Hem Raj Sharma v. HP University & Anr., and did not dispute applicability.
- The Court referred to the previous decision (Dr. Hem Raj Sharma), which itself rested on Supreme Court rulings, including State of U.P v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva (2015) and a 2021 SCC decision, establishing rights to arrears for similarly situated employees.
- The relevant operative part of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma was reproduced, which directed release of arrears of Secretariat Pay with interest.
- Applying the “mutatis mutandis” principle, the present writ petitions were disposed of by directing the same relief as in the previous case.
- The judgment emphasized judicial consistency, equality, and efficiency: once a legal issue is settled, subsequent identical cases must be resolved on the same logic.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Reliefs sought, issues, and grievances are the same as in earlier adjudicated matters.
- Requested that the Court extend the directions issued in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma v. HP University & Anr. to their cases.
Respondents
- Respondent No. 2 (State): Stated that no reply would be filed.
- Respondent No. 1 (University): Did not file any reply despite opportunity, and had no objection to applying the previous decision as proposed by the petitioners.
- Admitted the correctness of the petitioners’ submissions regarding similarity to earlier decided cases.
Factual Background
The petitioners, retired employees of Himachal Pradesh University, challenged certain office orders dated 29.01.2024 and 28.05.2024. They sought quashing of these orders and payment of full arrears of Secretariat Pay from the date of retirement, citing prior Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The respondents did not oppose the petitions, acknowledging that the issues and grievances raised were identical to those decided in the recent Dr. Hem Raj Sharma case.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed the doctrine of binding precedent and the application of identical legal reasoning (mutatis mutandis) in service law disputes.
- Cited Supreme Court decisions interpreting entitlement to arrears and equality of treatment for similarly situated employees under service law.
- No statutory provision was interpreted narrowly or expansively; the focus was on consistent judicial directions in matters of monetary service benefits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded; the judgment is delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded. The case follows established procedure by summary disposal based on admission of non-opposition and earlier binding precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law as per Supreme Court and previous High Court judgment (Dr. Hem Raj Sharma) is affirmed and extended.