The Court answered that, after withdrawal of the office order (28.03.2025) that had unilaterally rescinded service benefits, those benefits must be restored—even amid new service legislation (HPRCS Act, 2024). This judgment applies existing precedent and directs time-bound compliance, affirming earlier judgments (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash). The decision is binding on subordinate courts and clarifies the continuance of benefits where state orders have been withdrawn.
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 | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms earlier orders and clarifies scope post-HPRCS Act, 2024 |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Employment Law (Government Employees) |
| Questions of Law | Whether service benefits previously granted but withdrawn vide Office Order dated 28.03.2025 are to be restored when the said order is itself withdrawn, notwithstanding the HPRCS Act, 2024. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the withdrawal of Office Order dated 28.03.2025 by subsequent orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025 renders the employee grievances on withdrawal of service benefits infructuous. It was clarified that the benefits withdrawn must be restored and extended to similarly situated employees, strictly following the approach in prior judgments (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash) as accepted by the State years prior and as clarified post-enactment of the HPRCS Act, 2024. The Court directed time-bound restoration of benefits without examining other claims. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners challenged Office Order dated 28.03.2025 withdrawing service benefits after the enactment of HPRCS Act, 2024. Subsequent Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025 withdrew the impugned order, and government clarified that prior benefits and judgments remain protected. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the State of Himachal Pradesh in service matters regarding withdrawn service benefits related to Office Order dated 28.03.2025 and similar orders. |
| Persuasive For | Other Indian High Courts regarding service benefit restoration after government withdrawal of adverse orders; may be cited in analogous national cases. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that when an adverse executive order withdrawing service benefits is itself withdrawn, the status quo ante must be restored even after new legislation (HPRCS Act, 2024).
- High Court affirms that judicially recognised service benefits, once accepted by the State, remain unaffected by subsequent legislative changes unless specifically provided.
- Directs authorities to restore/re-extend all withdrawn benefits to affected and similarly placed employees by a set deadline (30th November 2025).
- The case reinforces binding effect of earlier judgments (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash) despite enactment of subsequent statutes.
- Lawyers can use this judgment to secure restoration of withdrawn service benefits where government orders are revoked after legal challenge.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that after the adverse Office Order dated 28.03.2025 was challenged, the government withdrew it by new orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025.
- These subsequent orders and the Advocate General’s opinion clarified that the judgments in earlier cases (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash) remain protected, not disturbed by the HPRCS Act, 2024.
- The Court reviewed government correspondence confirming that benefits previously recognized (and judicially established) could not be rescinded via the now-withdrawn order.
- The Court thus found the petitions’ core grievance was redressed and directed the authorities to restore and extend service benefits to all affected employees in a time-bound fashion.
- The Court did not address any other claims, issues, or prayers, preserving parties’ rights to further remedies if desired.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioners argued that service benefits previously granted were wrongly withdrawn by the Office Order dated 28.03.2025 after the HPRCS Act, 2024.
- They asserted that, with the issuance of subsequent Office Orders (23.08.2025, 27.08.2025) withdrawing the earlier order, their grievance stood resolved, and restoration of benefits should follow.
Respondent
- The State referred to the recent Office Orders and government clarifications, including the Advocate General’s advice that the HPRCS Act, 2024 does not apply to judgments accepted more than a decade ago.
- They confirmed the withdrawal of the impugned order and agreed that prior service benefits and judicial orders would be implemented in light of new instructions.
Factual Background
Petitioners, all government employees, had been granted certain service benefits pursuant to prior judicial decisions (e.g., Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash). After the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024 was enacted, the State issued Office Order dated 28.03.2025 withdrawing some already extended benefits and rejecting claims for similar benefits by others. The petitioners challenged this withdrawal. Before adjudication, the State withdrew the impugned order by Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, and clarified restoration of previous benefits.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024 (HPRCS Act, 2024).
- Advocate General’s opinion was recorded, stating that the Act does not affect cases where judgments granting service benefits had already been accepted by the State.
- No “reading down” or expansion of the Act was required; rather, the Act was construed prospectively, preserving prior compliance and accepted judgments.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no dissenting or concurring opinion; the judgment is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment directs time-bound restoration of benefits, with specified deadline (30th November, 2025) and compliance supervision (errant officers to appear before Directorate if non-compliance is found).
- The Court left open all other claims for separate adjudication, enhancing procedural clarity.
- The mechanism to ensure compliance includes mandatory reporting by subordinate officers to the Directorate as required by the Court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and affirms existing precedent (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash), clarifies application post-new legislation.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – The Court sets a mandatory compliance deadline (30th November, 2025) for restoration of benefits.