The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that, consequent to the withdrawal of an office order that denied or withdrew service benefits from government employees, authorities must restore such benefits in accordance with prior judicial directions. This judgment applies the established precedent from earlier decisions, ensures compliance by the executive, and has binding effect on subordinate authorities in public employment/service matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6193/2025 of RAJ KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010192432025 |
| 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 and Justice Romesh Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh in relation to restoration of withdrawn service benefits |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment |
| Questions of Law | Whether, after withdrawal of an office order denying/extending service benefits by reason of subsequent government circulars, previously granted benefits must be restored to similarly situated employees. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where an office order withdrawing service benefits granted to government employees is subsequently withdrawn and declared infructuous, authorities must restore such benefits and extend them to all similarly-situated employees in accordance with the court’s prior judgments. Compliance with the previous judgments is required, and fresh directions were issued to ensure timely restoration and extension of benefits. Other unrelated issues/prayers remain open for separate adjudication. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities | Restores service benefits based on affirmed analogy and previous directions; relies on advice of Advocate General and clarifications issued by Directorate; imposes compliance responsibility on officers. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged Office Order No. EDN-H(2)B(2)54/2013-CC dated 28.03.2025 by which certain service benefits were withdrawn after the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024. The order was subsequently withdrawn by Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025. Petitioners’ grievance was limited to seeking restoration of service benefits withdrawn by the original order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and government authorities in Himachal Pradesh regarding restoration of service benefits |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and similar authorities in public service matters involving withdrawal and subsequent restoration of benefits |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Re-affirms that when an office order withdrawing/extending service benefits is itself withdrawn as infructuous, restoration of earlier benefits is mandatory.
- Explicit directions issued to enforce timely restoration and extension of benefits to all similarly situated persons by a specific deadline, failing which, authorities must explain non-compliance.
- Previous judicial analogies and directions remain effective even after enactment of new legislation, where the government itself acknowledges their continued applicability.
- Leaves all other claims and issues arising from the petitions open for separate legal remedy.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioners’ main grievance was against the withdrawal of pre-existing service benefits by Office Order dated 28.03.2025 following enactment of the HPRCS Act, 2024.
- It was submitted by both petitioners and respondents (supported by letters, office orders, and Advocate General’s opinion) that the impugned order had since been withdrawn by Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025.
- Prior judgments, particularly CWP No. 414/2014 (Kuldeep Chand) and its analogues, were referenced as binding precedent, and their implementation was clarified and reaffirmed by subsequent office communications.
- The Court required authorities to restore all such withdrawn benefits and to extend them to similarly placed persons in line with the Court’s prior decisions, imposing a clear compliance deadline.
- The case left open for future determination any unrelated or additional claims raised in the petitions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the office order dated 28.03.2025 which withdrew service benefits.
- Sought restoration and extension of benefits already granted as per previous court directions.
Respondent (State/Government)
- Confirmed that the impugned office order had been withdrawn and clarified by subsequent orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025.
- Referred to advice of the Advocate General and compliance direction from oversight authorities.
Factual Background
Petitioners, employees or former employees of Himachal Pradesh Government, were affected by Office Order dated 28.03.2025, which withdrew certain previously granted service benefits following the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024. Subsequent office orders (dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025) were issued withdrawing the original impugned order and clarifying compliance with earlier High Court judgments. The main relief sought became restoration of the withdrawn benefits.
Statutory Analysis
The case revolved around the impact of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024, particularly in the context of pre-existing service benefit judgments. The Court interpreted the Act vis-à-vis previous judicial decisions, supported by expert legal opinion, and found that its enactment did not undermine binding court-directed service benefits, which remained enforceable.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed the respondents to provide timely compliance and threatened compulsory personal appearance for non-compliance.
- All other prayer/issues were explicitly left open for separate litigation, if sought.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law and analogies from earlier reported judgments are reaffirmed and strictly followed.