The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that once an office order withdrawing previously granted service benefits is itself withdrawn, all such service benefits must be restored to all affected employees on the same terms, reaffirming that prior judicial orders and analogies continue to govern. The decision upholds established precedent, applies to employees subject to similar office orders, and serves as binding authority within the state circuit.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6192/2025 of BHAWANI DUTT Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010192372025 |
| 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 | Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Justice Romesh Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior analogies with CWP No. 414/2014 (Kuldeep Chand) and CWPOA No. 1695/2019 (Ajay Kumar) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether withdrawal of an office order that had withdrawn previously granted service benefits mandates automatic restoration of those service benefits to all affected employees. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that, upon withdrawal of the impugned Office Order dated 28.03.2025—which itself had withdrawn certain service benefits post enactment of the HPRCS Act, 2024—the withdrawn service benefits must be restored to the petitioners and all similarly situated persons. This is to be done in line with existing judicial analogies (notably, CWP No.414/2014 and LPA No.54/2013), and in compliance with the clarificatory and restorative office orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025 issued by the Directorate of School Education, HP. The Court strictly confined itself to the restoration of service benefits; all other claims or prayers may be adjudicated via separate proceedings if so advised. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | CWP No. 414/2014 (Kuldeep Chand v. State of HP & others); LPA No.54/2013 (State of HP v. Om Prakash); CWPOA No. 1695/2019 (Ajay Kumar & others v. State of HP & others) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Direct compliance with the subsequent administrative office orders (dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025) and advice of the Learned Advocate General; prior acceptance and implementation of related judicial orders by the State; limitation on retroactive disturbance of vested rights already crystallised over a decade ago. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were aggrieved due to an Office Order dated 28.03.2025 that withdrew certain previously granted service benefits based on the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. Subsequent office orders (dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025) withdrew the initial order, clarified the position per prior judgments, and directed restoration of service benefits. The Court was moved to ensure timely compliance and restoration of the benefits. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities within Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative bodies outside Himachal Pradesh |
| Follows | CWP No. 414/2014 (Kuldeep Chand v. State of HP & others); LPA No.54/2013 (State of HP v. Om Prakash); CWPOA No. 1695/2019 (Ajay Kumar & others v. State of HP & others) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restoration of service benefits: Withdrawal of an administrative order that had revoked benefits mandates immediate restoration of those benefits, if the later order so clarifies.
- Compliance with judicial analogy: Benefits must be reinstated where prior High Court judgments (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash, Ajay Kumar) have already been followed or accepted by the State.
- No reopening of closed cases: The court recognized the Advocate General’s advice that cases already accepted and implemented over a decade ago cannot be revisited under the new statutory regime.
- Clear direction for implementation: The Court directed that all restoration and extension of analogous benefits be completed on or before a specified date, with compliance reports as warranted by ongoing contempt/execution proceedings.
- Limitation of adjudication: Only the specific prayer regarding restoration of service benefits was adjudicated; all other issues must be raised separately.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted a common grievance among various petitioners: withdrawal of previously granted service benefits via an administrative order (dated 28.03.2025), following the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- Petitioners drew analogies with earlier cases (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash, Ajay Kumar) where similar service benefits had been judicially recognized and implemented.
- The Directorate, with the Government’s approval and on the advice of the Advocate General, clarified that such withdrawn office orders were to be treated as infructuous and withdrawn, and that benefits conferred as per earlier judgments (and analogies) should be respected.
- State authorities issued subsequent office orders (23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025) explicitly withdrawing the challenged order and directing compliance with earlier judicial analogies.
- The Court, accepting this, directed immediate restoration of service benefits withdrawn vide the 28.03.2025 order, to be completed in a time-bound manner for all affected individuals.
- The Court expressly refrained from deciding other claims, keeping the door open for such claims in future proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged withdrawal of service benefits granted prior to the 28.03.2025 office order.
- Argued for restoration of those benefits in view of the subsequent withdrawal of the impugned order (23.08.2025, 27.08.2025).
- Sought binding directions for timely restoration and extension of benefits analogously to similarly situated employees.
Respondents (State/Government)
- Through Office Orders and Advocate General’s opinion, confirmed withdrawal of the 28.03.2025 order.
- Accepted that prior judicial analogies (Kuldeep Chand, etc.) must be followed, with no reopening of cases already accepted and implemented.
- Did not oppose the restoration sought by the petitioners in light of the changed administrative position.
Factual Background
Petitioners, all government employees, were aggrieved by an Office Order dated 28.03.2025 which, following the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, withdrew certain already extended service benefits. Subsequent administrative review, referencing past High Court judgments in similar cases, led to office orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, which declared the impugned order as infructuous and directed restoration of benefits. The petitions sought judicial direction to ensure timely, uniform compliance with these instructions.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referred to the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, as the administrative basis for the original withdrawal.
- The Advocate General’s advice interpreted the Act not to override or reopen cases where deemed regularisation and similar benefits had already been accepted and implemented by the State, and judgments had attained finality more than a decade ago.
- No “reading down” or other constitutional interpretation was applied, as the matter was confined to administrative compliance with previous judicial analogies.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed specific, time-bound compliance with restoration of benefits by a stipulated date.
- Compliance was tied to existing execution/contempt proceedings pending before the Court, with a mechanism for accountability of officers who failed to implement the directions.
- The Court limited the scope of disposal to the specific relief sought, preserving parties’ rights to pursue other issues via separate remedies.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies prior High Court analogies (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash, Ajay Kumar), rather than creating new law or overruling established precedent.