The Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that upon formal withdrawal of an administrative order retracting government employees’ service benefits, authorities must immediately restore such benefits to those affected, following existing judicial analogies and prior department orders. This judgment aligns with and upholds previously set precedent regarding the implementation of service benefits, confirming binding authority for similarly situated cases in the government sector in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/6198/2025 of BABITA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010192442025 |
| 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 and all State Government authorities in Himachal Pradesh regarding similar administrative withdrawals affecting service benefits |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service law; administrative law; government employment benefits |
| Questions of Law | Whether the withdrawal of an administrative order retracting already extended service benefits requires the State to restore such benefits in light of prior judicial directions and current statutory/regulatory framework |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court found that the office order dated 28.03.2025, which withdrew existing service benefits following the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, was itself withdrawn by subsequent official orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025. As a result, the legal wrong caused to the petitioners was rectified. The respondents were directed to restore admissible service benefits previously withdrawn and to extend similar benefits to all eligible petitioners and similarly situated individuals on or before 30.11.2025, on the same analogy as recognized in prior High Court judgments. The matter was disposed of solely on this issue, keeping other prayers of the petitioners open for future litigation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged the withdrawal of their service benefits under Office Order dated 28.03.2025, following the enactment of the HPRCS Act, 2024. The State thereafter issued Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, declaring the prior withdrawal order infructuous and formally rescinding it, clarifying that past benefits accorded under earlier court rulings remained unaffected. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and State Government departments in Himachal Pradesh on restoration of service benefits after withdrawal of adverse orders |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar service benefit withdrawal contexts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment underscores that once an order withdrawing service benefits is revoked, restoration of such benefits must follow promptly, as a matter of legal right for all affected.
- Reinforces that newly enacted service condition legislation (HPRCS Act, 2024) does not retrospectively affect service benefit orders previously accepted and implemented based on High Court judgments.
- Affirms government and administrative compliance obligations post-withdrawal of adverse office orders, with the High Court ready to monitor enforcement.
- Leaves other, non-overlapping claims in the petitions open for fresh litigation, clarifying limitations of instant adjudication.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court identified the petitioners’ common grievance as arising solely from Office Order dated 28.03.2025, which had retracted earlier service benefits.
- The Court noted that the concerned administrative authorities (Directorate of School Education) had subsequently issued Office Orders on 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, explicitly withdrawing the impugned order, thus reverting the legal position to what it was prior to 28.03.2025.
- It cited and relied on existing analogies and precedents, particularly CWP No. 414/2014 (Kuldeep Chand), LPA No. 54/2013 (Om Prakash), and Ajay Kumar (CWPOA No. 1695/2019), which recognized the continued enforceability of court-directed service benefits post-acceptance by State authorities.
- The Court accepted the Advocate General’s advice that judgments already accepted by the State a decade ago were unaffected by the HPRCS Act, 2024.
- Upon these premises, the Court directed authorities to restore and re-extend service benefits to eligible petitioners without adjudicating other claims, making its reasoning dependent upon documented withdrawal and pre-existing judicial recognition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioners were aggrieved by the withdrawal of previously granted service benefits via the impugned Office Order dated 28.03.2025.
- Asserted that the State had subsequently rescinded the impugned order through newer office orders (23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025).
- Sought directions for immediate restoration and extension of all admissible service benefits on the analogy of prior judgments.
Respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh)
- Acknowledged that the impugned office order (28.03.2025) had been rendered infructuous and withdrawn by official communication.
- Did not object to restoration of service benefits in light of the formal withdrawal.
Factual Background
The petitioners, government employees in Himachal Pradesh, approached the High Court after the issuance of an office order dated 28.03.2025, which withdrew certain previously extended service benefits following the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. Following the filing of these writ petitions, the State issued subsequent Office Orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, withdrawing the impugned order and clarifying that prior court-sanctioned service benefits remained unaffected. The core dispute was thus confined to restoration of said benefits.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced and relied upon the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- Interpretation: The Court noted, premised on authoritative advice, that the 2024 Act does not permit reopening or revisiting service benefits that had previously been conferred under final High Court judgments and accepted by the State, thus upholding a narrow application of the Act to new cases only.
- No other statutory provisions were interpreted or “read down” in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were delivered; both judges concurred in the oral order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedent or guidelines were articulated in this judgment; the Court simply directed administrative compliance with the prior legal position following revocation of the adverse order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirmed existing precedent and departmental practices and reinforced State compliance obligations.