The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirms that once an impugned office order withdrawing service benefits is withdrawn by the government through a subsequent order, all previously withdrawn benefits must be restored to affected parties in a time-bound manner. This judgment clarifies implementation obligations for the government and employees in the service law context and establishes binding authority for subordinate courts under its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6196/2025 of BALDEV RAJ SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010192402025 |
| 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: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Justice Romesh Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive for parallel high courts. |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court found that the State’s subsequent office order withdrawing the previous office order (which had withdrawn service benefits post-enactment of new legislation) made the earlier impugned order infructuous. Any benefits previously extended to petitioners and subsequently withdrawn, as well as claims pending for similar benefits, must now be restored and extended pursuant to the updated government orders and previous court analogies. The State is directed to implement these restorations in a time-bound manner. The Court did not adjudicate on any other claim, leaving those open for future litigation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioners were aggrieved by an office order dated 28.03.2025, which withdrew or denied certain already-extended service benefits following the enactment of new service legislation. A subsequent government order dated 23.08.2025 rendered the earlier order infructuous and required restoration/extension of benefits analogue to previous court decisions. Petitioners’ grievances arose solely from the original withdrawal order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Himachal Pradesh High Court’s jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially, the Supreme Court, in similar service law contexts involving withdrawal and restoration of government benefits. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that if a government order reducing/withdrawing benefits is subsequently withdrawn, the restoration of those benefits is mandatory and must be done expeditiously.
- The Court mandates a specific time frame for restoration and extension of service benefits to affected and similarly-situated persons.
- Reinforces principles of administrative consistency: benefits withdrawn contrary to earlier court-affirmed analogies cannot stand if underlying policy/office order is retracted.
- Leaves open the possibility for petitioners to approach the court on further/different issues not addressed in this petition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment opens by noting all connected petitions share a common grievance relating to the withdrawal of service benefits through a specific office order, issued after the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- The Court records that the office order withdrawing service benefits has since been declared infructuous by the government in a subsequent office order, with directions to restore and extend analogous benefits, confirmed by the Director of School Education.
- The Court relies on previous court analogies and advice from the Advocate General, confirming that deemed regularisation cases and those already accepted by the State must continue to be honoured, unaffected by the new legislation.
- The Court’s ratio is direct: since the impugned order no longer exists, all grievances relating to it are redressed, and restoration of benefits is to follow.
- Other issues or prayers raised by the petitioners are expressly left open for future adjudication.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioners were aggrieved by the office order dated 28.03.2025, which withdrew already-extended service benefits or denied claims for similar benefits.
- Following withdrawal of the disputed order by new office orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, the petitioners state their grievances are now redressed, seeking only timely restoration and extension of the benefits.
Respondent (State)
- No specific argument recorded in the judgment; respondents present through Advocate General and Additional Advocate General.
- Did not oppose the direction for restoration of benefits post-withdrawal of the impugned order.
Factual Background
The petitioners, consisting of various government employees, were affected by Office Order No. EDN-H(2)B(2)54/2013-CC, dated 28.03.2025, which withdrew certain service benefits following the notification of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024. Some had their benefits withdrawn; others’ claims for similar benefits were denied, all based on this order. Subsequently, by office orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, the government withdrew the impugned order and directed restoration and extension of benefits, in line with previous court-affirmed analogies.
Statutory Analysis
- The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024 was referenced as the statutory basis for the original withdrawal of benefits.
- The Court refers to governmental and legal clarifications, including advice from the Advocate General, confirming that existing court judgments regarding regularisation and analogous cases are not covered by the new Act and thus must be implemented as previously decided.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows existing case law analogies (particularly Kuldeep Chand and Om Prakash) and affirms procedural consistency in service benefit restoration.