The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has directed restoration of withdrawn service benefits following the withdrawal of an impugned departmental order and reaffirmation of prior court judgments. The decision affirms established precedent regarding the implementation of prior analogical judgments and clarifies compliance obligations for the Government and its departments, serving as binding authority for all subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6191/2025 of DEEPA PANDIT Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010192422025 |
| 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: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law, Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, in light of withdrawal of Office Order dated 28.3.2025—by which certain service benefits were rescinded after the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024—and specific government clarifications, the withdrawal renders the grievance regarding the said order infructuous. The respondents are directed to restore service benefits immediately that were withdrawn, and also to extend similar benefits to presently and similarly situated petitioners on or before 30th November, 2025, as per previously adjudicated analogical rulings. Only the issue relating to the office order’s withdrawal and resultant restoration of benefits is decided; all other claims remain open. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Implementation of prior court judgments on the analogy of Kuldeep Chand v. State of HP and Om Prakash, reliance on advice of the Advocate General regarding the limited impact of the HPRCS Act, 2024 on judgments older than a decade which the State had accepted, and subsequent Government and departmental clarifications and withdrawal of the impugned office order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners challenged Office Order dated 28.03.2025, issued after the HPRCS Act, 2024, by which certain service benefits were withdrawn or denied. Subsequently, Government issued Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, withdrawing the impugned order and directing compliance with prior court judgments on the same issue. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, administrative authorities in analogous service matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that once a departmental office order revoking service benefits is withdrawn, affected employees are entitled to restoration of those benefits in a time-bound manner, consistent with existing judicial precedent.
- Clarifies that state authorities must comply with analogical precedent already accepted and not re-open benefit entitlements already regularized by older judgments unaffected by subsequent statutory changes.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to demand timely restoration or extension of service benefits when departmental withdrawals are rescinded following similar government/departmental clarifications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recognized that the main grievance in these petitions was the issuance of Office Order dated 28.03.2025, which had withdrawn certain service benefits following the enactment of the HPRCS Act, 2024.
- Subsequent Office Orders (dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025) clarified by the Directorate of School Education and the Government of HP unequivocally withdrew the contested office order, making the dispute infructuous.
- The Advocate General’s advice confirmed that longstanding judgments (accepted by the state more than a decade ago) concerning deemed regularisation were not impacted by the 2024 Act and should not be reopened.
- The Government expressly directed that implementation of benefits per earlier court judgments (notably Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash, and Ajay Kumar) was mandatory.
- The court, therefore, directed the respondents to immediately restore previously extended but withdrawn benefits, and to extend similar benefits to all similarly situated persons, specifically referencing analogically decided prior cases.
- Only the issue of restoration upon withdrawal of the order was decided; all other issues remain open for future adjudication.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioners had challenged the withdrawal of service benefits by Office Order dated 28.03.2025, seeking restoration of benefits denied or withdrawn.
- Upon withdrawal of the impugned order and clarification by the Government and Director of School Education, petitioners submitted that their grievances stood redressed except for the need for a formal direction for timely restoration.
Respondent (State)
- No further contest was noted following the withdrawal of the impugned office order and explicit clarification from the government regarding implementation of old judgments.
Factual Background
The petitioners, employees under the Directorate of School Education, challenged Office Order dated 28.03.2025, which had withdrawn certain service benefits previously granted to them, following the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024. After representations and legal examination—including references to the Advocate General—the State Government and the Directorate issued subsequent office orders withdrawing the impugned order and clarifying that benefits in accordance with prior judgments must be implemented.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment referenced the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024, specifically examining its applicability to prior judgments concerning deemed regularization and service benefits. The Advocate General advised that judgments accepted by the state over a decade earlier were not to be reopened in view of the 2024 Act. No further statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment primarily affirms implementation of binding precedent and directs departmental compliance with previously adjudicated cases.