The High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed authorities to restore service benefits previously withdrawn through an office order, following withdrawal of that order and clarification from the State; the Court reaffirmed adherence to prior judicial decisions (notably on the analogy of CWP No. 414/2014 and LPA No. 54/2013), confirming binding precedent for service benefits vis-a-vis new recruitment legislation—serving as binding authority within the State and persuasive to other jurisdictions in similar statutory contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/5994/2025 of RAMESH CHAND Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010189992025 |
| 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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other High Courts in similar matters |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior judgments (e.g., CWP No. 414/2014, LPA No. 54/2013, and CWPOA No. 1695/2019) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether withdrawal of an office order withdrawing service benefits, in light of the enactment of new legislation, mandates restoration and extension of previously withheld benefits to eligible employees. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that since the office order withdrawing service benefits (dated 28.03.2025) was itself withdrawn and rendered infructuous by subsequent orders (23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025) and clarified by the Director and Government, grievances regarding withdrawal of benefits no longer survive; the respondents are duty-bound to restore and extend service benefits previously withdrawn or withheld, in line with existing judgments and analogies already accepted by the State over a decade ago. |
| 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 | Acceptance and continued binding force of previously decided analogies and Court orders, clear administrative withdrawal of impugned action, and Advocate General’s advice that earlier accepted judgments are not reopened by new statute. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were aggrieved by the Office Order dated 28.03.2025 withdrawing certain service benefits in light of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024. The impugned order was subsequently withdrawn by orders dated 23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025. The State clarified compliance with earlier judicial decisions and restored the legal position regarding service benefits. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh handling similar service benefit disputes. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, depending on context, the Supreme Court, when considering administrative withdrawal and restoration of service benefits post statutory changes. |
| Follows | CWP No. 414/2014 (Kuldeep Chand v. State of HP), 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
- The judgment clarifies that withdrawal of an impugned government office order necessitates immediate restoration of service benefits previously withheld due to that order.
- The Court emphasized the duty of the State to comply with past judgments—even after the enactment of new legislation—where those judgments were accepted by the State and have remained undisturbed.
- Lawyers can rely on this precedent to argue for restoration of benefits in cases where administrative orders impinging on service rights are rendered infructuous.
- The Court directed time-bound compliance, mandating the restoration/extension of benefits by a specific date.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the main grievance arose from the Office Order dated 28.03.2025, which had withdrawn certain service benefits based on a new recruitment statute.
- It was pointed out by petitioners (and not disputed by respondents) that this impugned order was explicitly withdrawn by subsequent office orders (23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025), rendering the primary issue academic or infructuous.
- The Director of School Education and the Government clarified through official communications, based on past High Court orders and the opinion of the Advocate General, that older judgments regarding regularisation and service benefits—accepted over a decade ago—cannot be reopened due to the new Act.
- The Court reiterated that the withdrawal of the impugned order revives the petitioners’ entitlement to the relevant service benefits.
- Respondents were directed to restore and extend these benefits promptly, in compliance with prior judgments and administrative clarifications.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the withdrawal of service benefits effected by the Office Order dated 28.03.2025, claiming it was contrary to earlier judgments and their established rights.
- After the State’s subsequent withdrawal of the offending order, petitioners limited their prayer to seeking direction for timely restoration and extension of the admissible benefits.
Respondent (State of H.P.)
- Following the withdrawal of the impugned office order, the State did not dispute restoration of benefits as directed by past judicial pronouncements and clarified by administrative communications.
Factual Background
The petitions arose from the issuance of Office Order No. EDN-H(2)B(2)54/2013-CC dated 28.03.2025 by the State, which withdrew certain service benefits from employees pursuant to the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024. Petitioners—aggrieved by denial or withdrawal of benefits—approached the Court. During the proceedings, the State issued further office orders (23.08.2025 and 27.08.2025) withdrawing the impugned order and clarifying administrative compliance with earlier High Court judgments. Consequently, the original grievance became infructuous, save for the matter of restoring the withdrawn benefits.
Statutory Analysis
- The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Government Employees Act, 2024 was at the core of the case, being the basis for the original office order withdrawing benefits.
- The Court, however, focused on the administrative withdrawal of the impugned order and the legal position that judgments already accepted by the State prior to the Act’s promulgation were not disturbed by the new statute, as affirmed through the Advocate General’s advice and Government clarifications.
- No interpretation or reading down of the Act was undertaken; instead, existing judicial precedent was directed to be followed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; the decision was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court disposed multiple connected writ petitions via a common order, focusing strictly on the common grievance arising out of the impugned office order.
- Left open all other issues for future adjudication, explicitly allowing parties to seek separate remedies as needed.
- Directed the respondents to ensure compliance and set a deadline (30th November, 2025) for restoration and extension of benefits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed and enforced prior judgments instead of setting aside established precedent.