Immediate restoration of previously withdrawn service benefits is required where the impugned withdrawal order has itself been declared infructuous and withdrawn by subsequent administrative orders; Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds established precedent and directs compliance. The judgment functions as binding authority for similar service matters within the state, particularly involving government employees affected by analogous office orders.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6195/2025 of DEEPAK VASUDEVA Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010192362025 |
| 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 |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law; Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether service benefits withdrawn pursuant to an administrative order (subsequently withdrawn) must be restored to affected employees. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, following withdrawal of the impugned office order (28.03.2025) by subsequent orders (23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025), the respondents were duty-bound to restore all previously extended service benefits that had been withdrawn and also to extend similar benefits to other similarly situated employees. The Court noted that the respondents had accepted and decided to comply with earlier judicial pronouncements made on analogous facts (as in Kuldeep Chand and Om Prakash). Since the respondents’ own withdrawal order rendered the previous adverse order infructuous, the restoration of benefits is required as a matter of law and administrative regularity. The Court directed implementation of the decision within a set timeframe and kept other issues open for separate adjudication. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reasoning was based on compliance with judicial precedents and proper administrative action following legal opinion of Advocate General and government clarification. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Multiple petitions challenged the withdrawal of service benefits through Office Order dated 28.03.2025 after the HP Recruitment and Conditions of Service Act, 2024. The order was made infructuous and withdrawn by subsequent orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025. The Court directed restoration of the withdrawn service benefits and compliance with judicial precedents. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar administrative withdrawal of employee benefits following superseded or withdrawn executive orders |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court clarified that once an administrative order, which had withdrawn service benefits, is itself withdrawn or rendered infructuous, all previously withdrawn benefits must be restored immediately to affected employees.
- Legal compliance is required with previously accepted judicial pronouncements, even in light of new statutory enactments, unless specifically overridden by statute or subsequent valid orders.
- The decision mandates strict and time-bound compliance with such restoration directions for similarly situated employees.
- The Court kept open all other issues for separate adjudication, ensuring that other claims or benefits can be litigated independently.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitions centred on a common grievance: withdrawal of service benefits via Office Order dated 28.03.2025, pursuant to the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- The respondents subsequently withdrew the impugned order on 23.08.2025 and clarified compliance with analogous judgments (Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash, Ajay Kumar) via further order dated 27.08.2025.
- The Court noted that, since the cause of grievance was removed, the legal position followed precedents already accepted by the State, thus mandating immediate restoration of withdrawn service benefits.
- The Court explicitly relied on legal advice from the Advocate General and prior High Court judgments regarding regularisation and entitlement to benefits.
- Directions were issued for prompt compliance, with a stipulated deadline and provision for enforcement by way of compliance reports and presence of erring officers in case of default.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged withdrawal of previously granted service benefits by Office Order dated 28.03.2025, consequent to new legislation.
- Sought restoration and extension of service benefits after the respondents’ subsequent withdrawal of the impugned order.
Respondent (State of HP)
- Clarified that the withdrawal of Office Order 28.03.2025 rendered the dispute infructuous.
- Notified compliance with prior judgments and communicated new directions for restoration/extension of benefits.
Factual Background
Multiple petitioners, all government employees, challenged Office Order No. EDN-H(2)B(2)54/2013-CC dated 28.03.2025, which, following the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024, withdrew certain previously granted service benefits. The State subsequently withdrew this order through orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, clarifying restoration of benefits and adherence to previous judicial pronouncements. The petitions sought formal direction for restoration and extension of admissible service benefits.
Statutory Analysis
- The primary statutory provision discussed was the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024, which formed the basis for the impugned withdrawal order.
- The applicability of the Act was clarified by legal opinion, indicating that previously accepted judgments regarding “deemed regularisation” were not affected by the new Act.
- The respondents’ orders and the Court’s reasoning focused on administrative compliance with prior judicial decisions despite the enactment of new legislation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The order affirms and applies established precedent (particularly Kuldeep Chand, Om Prakash, and Ajay Kumar) and does not break or overrule binding authority.