2025:HHC:38972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1804 of 2025 & LPA No.795 of 2025 Decided on: 18 th November, 2025 __________________________________________________ State of H.P and others ...Applicants/Appellants Versus Bhupender Gupta ...Non-applicant/Respondent ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.1804 of 2025 The appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge decided on 10.03.2025 in CWP No.2683 of 2024 titled Bhupender Gupta vs. State of H.P. and others is barred by 67 days. Keeping in view the reasons given in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the application for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Application stands disposed of. LPA No.795 of 2025 3. The consideration sought by the State is against the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.2683 of 2024 titled Bhupender Gupta vs. State of H.P. and others. By virtue of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge directed that the respondent-employee be given the benefit of extension in service, being a National Awardee, in terms of notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015. 4. The dispute had arisen on account of the State taking contrary stands which placed the writ petitioner at a disadvantageous position and on account of the same his demand for extension in service had been rejected vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-6). This was done on the ground that there was a Government notification dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure R-I) which had no provision for granting extension in service for National/State Awardee Teachers and that he could only seek re- engagement in view of the present policy. The said order had been passed on the basis of the recommendation dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-5), made just prior to the respondent’s retirement on 30.04.2024, which had been forwarded for extension of two years of service on account of having received National Teacher Award. The 3 requisite representation had also been forwarded by the Principal, Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Chandi(A), Distt. Solan on 03.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) on account of the fact that the National Teacher Award-2015 had been conferred upon the respondent-employee on 05.09.2016. 5. It is to be noticed that thereafter the State issued a fresh notification dated 06.02.2025 wherein, it re-introduced the benefit as such to be granted by superseding the earlier communication dated 12.09.2023 and brought the right of the extension in service to National/State Awardee Teachers, who did not opt for such extension in service or would be entitled to a one- time fixed cash reward of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- for National Awardee Teachers and State Awardee Teachers, respectively, which was to be given in favour of the awardee teachers during their last month of service. 6. The reason which prevailed with the learned Single Judge in granting the said benefits as such was that the initial Notification dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-2) as such conferred the benefit of grant of two years of extension in service for National Level Awardees and the same had been further modified vide Notification 30.11.2015 whereby, not only the extension in service was granted but also one increment was to be given for the National 4 Awardee. However, a condition was imposed that the cash award received earlier by such Teachers was liable to be refunded from their salaries in 12 equal installments. A finding was also recorded that the employee was not given any cash reward, and that the benefit of additional increment had already been granted in terms of the earlier Notification dated 24.09.2015. 7. It was accordingly held that at that point of time when the award was granted, the respondent-employee had 9 years of service left and therefore he could not opt for the benefit of extension in service at that point of time. 8. The challenge to the subsequent notification dated 19.07.2023 was thus considered and it was accordingly held that once the part benefit has been granted in terms of the said Notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, the respondent- employee would be entitled to get full benefits also and his rights could not be defeated on account of the Notification dated 19.07.2023 which withdrew the earlier policy. 9. It was further held that the grounds taken by the State to deny the benefit were flimsy, and that the subsequent Notification dated 06.02.2025 was relevant to determine that the right had already accrued in favour of the respondent-employee and could not be defeated. The notification dated 19.07.2023 did not specify 5 that it would have retrospective effect. 10. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge, kept in mind the fact that the notifications were issued with a view to encourage the meritorious teachers and the withdrawal could only be prospective in nature, keeping in view the right of the State as such being a policy decision. However, in view of the latest Notification dated 06.02.2025 as such, it was noticed that there were two classes of National/State Awardees now created by the State, one who had got the benefit and those who were being denied the benefit and the classification was bereft of any logic or object. 11. It was accordingly held that had the petitioner superannuated between 2015 to 2023, he would have got the benefit of extension, but only on account of the longer service and having retired between the year 2023 to 2025, the benefit was being denied without the State having any foresight to the said policy decision. 12. Subsequent Notification dated 06.02.2025 also did not clarify as to whether the date of award has to be kept into consideration or the date of retirement. Thus, a finding was recorded that it should be the date of the receipt as such of the award which is the fixed point as such and therefore the benefit would be there for the terms of the policy decision, failing which it 6 would create a division amongst National/State Awardees, on the basis of their dates of retirement and the discrimination is without any logic or rationale. 13. The sequence of events would go on to show that firstly for giving the benefit as such and to encourage the meritorious teachers, the State had taken a call that the National/State Teacher Awardees as such would be granted the benefit of extension in service. The decision dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-2) reads as under:- “In supersession of the earlier decisions/orders of the Governor of Himachal Pradesh grants two years extension of service to the teachers who have received national level awards, one-year extension to the other teachers and also gives the approval to the teachers who have received state level awards. This decision would have come into effect from the date of issue of the notification.” An additional benefit of the increment was also granted to the National Awardees as such which the writ petitioner has also got. The only condition as such was that the cash award as such would have to be refunded back vide subsequent notification dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) and it is not disputed that the writ petitioner never availed of the cash. The same reads as under:- 7 “In continuation to this department notification of even No dated 24.09.2015, and decided by the Govt that the teachers, who have received Rs.40,000 and 60,000/- in lieu for receiving State/National Awards respectively, will have the option to get one year in service for receiving State award and Two years extension in service with one increment for National Award subject to the condition that the cash award received by such teachers from the salary.” 14. Only on account of the fact that he got the additional increment in 2016 but his retirement was on 30.04.2024, he cannot be put in a disadvantageous position on account of the said policy which mitigates against the principle of awarding the meritorious teachers and the younger ones who had longer terms of service but had got the National Award at an earlier relevant point of time. The decision of the State can be termed as manifestly arbitrary. 15. The State had taken away the vested right as such of the employee which had been partly availed by grant of increment benefit on account of grant of the National Award in 2016. Thus, it could not have been taken back with retrospective effect, and it could be applied maximum to the subsequent awardees which had been given, but the State could not apply it blindly as such to the persons who had got the awards earlier but had still time to render service and avail the second benefit of extension as such on 8 account of the due date of retirement. 16. In such circumstances, the discrimination is also there apparently, keeping in view the fact that the subsequently policy was reintroduced on 06.02.2025, granting the same benefits as such to similarly situated teachers and therefore the writ petitioner could not be put to disadvantage on account of the varying stands taken by the State. 17. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the classification of two sets are not justifiable even though it might be a policy or concession. Therefore, the reasoning given that the relevant date as such would be the date of the award and not the date of retirement, is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The purpose flowing from the policies though withdrawn at one point of time but then reiterated by the subsequent policy would go on to show the intent of the State as such. Therefore the denial on the ground that there was a re- engagement policy with lesser benefits which should have been availed of which was offered to the petitioner, who chose not to do so and instead chose to litigate for his rights and therefore the learned Single Judge was well justified in granting the benefit and directing his extension in service. 18. Keeping in view the above, we dismiss the appeal. The 9 State is directed to ensure that the said order is complied within a period of four weeks from today, since the petitioner would then be able to serve the State for another five months. 19. Needless to say, for the period which he has not served, the State will also now have to pay the financial benefits on its own dilly-dallying account. 20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 18 th November, 2025 (ankit) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) Judge