Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3440 (HP)

Daleep Kumar Thakur v. State of H. P.

2025-11-18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner retired as Principal from respondents- Education Department. His case is that on account of having received a National Award, respondents were bound to grant him two years extension in service and one additional increment as per notification dated 24.09.2015. Respondents have not accepted petitioner’s contention. According to them, the National award received by the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the said notification, hence, he was justly not granted extension in service as also the additional increment. 2. The case. 2(i) Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (History) School Cadre on 07.12.1995. He was promoted to the post of Principal on 15.04.2017. While serving as Lecturer, petitioner was deputed by respondents as Incharge of National Service Scheme (NSS) in the Department of Higher Education in July, 2002. Taking note of petitioner’s contribution to NSS as Programme Co-ordinator, the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India recommended his name for Indira Gandhi N.S.S. Award (IGNSS), 2011-12. The award was received by the petitioner from Hon’ble President of India on 26.10.2012. Alongwith National Award, the petitioner also received cash prize of Rs.50,000/- and a trophy. 50,000/- and a trophy. 2(ii) Respondents- Education Department came up with notification dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure A-3), its English translation as supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:- “Government of Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department D.N.C.C. (1-7)-3/ 2007 Volume-III Dated Shimla-2 24.9.2015 Notification In supersession of all previous notifications/orders, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh grants two years extension in service with one additional increment to teachers who have received national level awards and one year extension of service to teachers who have received state level awards. This decision will come into effect from the date of issue of the notification. By order Additional Chief Secretary (Education) Government of Himachal Pradesh” The above notification was issued in supercession of all previous notifications/orders/decision on the subject. As per above notification, Hon’ble Governor of Himachal Pradesh had approved extension in service by two years to the National Awardee teachers alongwith one additional increment. The State Awardee teachers were entitled to one year extension in service. 2(iii) Subsequently another notification was issued on 30.11.2015 clarifying that to get extension in service the eligible teachers will have the option to deposit the cash awards. Incidentally, petitioner deposited cash award which he had received alongwith the National Award, with the respondents. The State Awardee teachers were entitled to one year extension in service. 2(iii) Subsequently another notification was issued on 30.11.2015 clarifying that to get extension in service the eligible teachers will have the option to deposit the cash awards. Incidentally, petitioner deposited cash award which he had received alongwith the National Award, with the respondents. Petitioner was due to superannuate on 31.05.2023. He represented seeking extension of two years in service. Staking claim upon the applicability of notification dated 24.09.2015, petitioner has preferred this writ petition for grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction may kindly be issued to directing the respondents to grant the petitioner two years extension in service and one additional increment in terms of notification dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-3).” 2(iv) The respondents- Education Department in its reply has not denied that petitioner had been given National Award. According to the respondents, the said National Award conferred upon the petitioner i.e. IGNSS Award for the period 2011-12 is not covered under the notification dated 24.09.2015. Respondents in their reply have made an endevour to trace history of notifications/scheme for conferring awards to teachers in the State Education Department from the year 2010 onwards. It has been highlighted that the State had introduced the scheme of awards to the teachers on 03.03.2010 which has been further modified from time to time. The reply states that as per Clause 3 of the 2010 Scheme, selection of teachers for grant of National Awards is made by a State Level Committee. The said Committee nominates the names of teachers as per the number prescribed by Union Government for National Award. During hearing of this case on 17.11.2025, learned Additional Advocate General had placed on record copy of said scheme dated 03.03.2010. Respondents have also pleaded that under the said scheme, the award money was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and a trophy. 60,000/- & Rs.50,000/- and a trophy. 40,000/- for National Awardee and State Awardee teachers, respectively. It is the stand of the respondents that on 04.09.2015, the Cabinet had decided to grant two years extension in service alongwith one additional increment to National Awardee teachers and one year extension to State Awardee teachers but this scheme is for the benefit of only those teachers who have been conferred National Award as per provisions of 2010 scheme. It is the stand of the respondents that on 04.09.2015, the Cabinet had decided to grant two years extension in service alongwith one additional increment to National Awardee teachers and one year extension to State Awardee teachers but this scheme is for the benefit of only those teachers who have been conferred National Award as per provisions of 2010 scheme. The National award received by the petitioner is different from the one conceptualized under notification dated 24.09.2015. 2(v) The gist of stand of respondents is that National award for which notification was issued on 24.09.2015 is different from the National Award received by the petitioner. The notification dated 24.09.2015 is applicable to the National Award received by the teachers for their excellence in field of education whereas the National Award received by the petitioner is in context of National Service Scheme. The notification dated 24.09.2015 governs such National Award which has been issued pursuant to the scheme dated 03.03.2010. In fact respondents have also outlined by way of instructions dated 06.11.2025 following differences between the National Teachers Award which according to them is covered by notification dated 24.09.2015 and the IGNSS Award received by the petitioner:- 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. The case revolves around a notification dated 24.09.2015 [extracted in para 2(ii)]. The notification supercedes all previous notifications/orders on the subject. As per the fresh notification issued on 24.09.2015, National Awardee Teachers are entitled to two years extension in service alongwith one additional increment whereas State Awardees are entitled to one year extension in service. The notification does not differentiate between the nature of National Award for conferring the benefits flowing from it. The notification does not dissects the National Awards issued to the teachers be it in the field of education or NSS for restricting the benefits emanating from the notification. All that is required under the notification for a teacher to be eligible for two years service extension with one additional increment is conferment of a National Award. Admittedly, the petitioner is recipient of a National Award. The award received by petitioner is not from any private agency but the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India. The award has been given to him by the Hon’ble President of India. Admittedly, the petitioner is recipient of a National Award. The award received by petitioner is not from any private agency but the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India. The award has been given to him by the Hon’ble President of India. National Awards for excellence in education from Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Government of India are also conferred by the Hon’ble President of India. Discrimination being created by the respondents between recipients of National Award given to teachers for education and the National Award given to teachers for their contribution to community and social service activities i.e. NSS is artificial, unwarranted and not supported by the notification. Respondents have acknowledged the fact that National Award in field of education recognizes pedagogical and educational excellence while Indira Gandhi NSS National Award recognizes dedication to selfless community service and social work by young volunteers and their leaders/ institutions under the NSS. The National Service Scheme is also part of School curriculum. It is for this reason that respondents had themselves deputed the petitioner as Programme Co-ordinator, NSS. During hearing of the case, learned Additional Advocate General fairly acknowledged the fact that notification dated 24.09.2015 had superceded all previous notifications and orders on the subject including 2010 scheme for conferring awards to teachers. As a consequence, the only available notification governing the field placed on record is the one issued on 24.09.2015. Respondents have also comprehended the notification dated 24.09.2015 in that manner i.e. all previous schemes for conferment of awards to school teachers stood superceded. This would also be evident from notification dated 19.07.2024 placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General during hearing of the case. In terms of said notification, the respondents-State has notified a fresh scheme titled Himachal Pradesh State Award for School Teachers Scheme, 2024. Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions fairly submitted that no scheme has been framed by the respondents- State till date for H.P. National Award for school teachers. Viewing from any angle, the only logical conclusion that can be deduced is that in the instant case, benefits of National Award would be governed by notification dated 24.09.2015 & no other notification and in terms of said notification, the National Awardee teachers are entitled to two years service extension with one additional increment. Viewing from any angle, the only logical conclusion that can be deduced is that in the instant case, benefits of National Award would be governed by notification dated 24.09.2015 & no other notification and in terms of said notification, the National Awardee teachers are entitled to two years service extension with one additional increment. The petitioner admittedly being recipient of a National Award during the year 2011-12, was entitled to two years extension in service with one additional increment. The petitioner, however has by now attained the age of 60 years. He was denied benefit of two years of extended service permissible to him as per notification dated 24.09.2015. In Union of India and Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others , (1991) 4 SCC 109 the employer had kept away the employee from promotional post by wrongly keeping his case for promotion in sealed cover. The employee was held entitled to actual benefits. Hon’ble Apex Court held that principle of ‘no work no pay’ has no applicability where employee though willing is not allowed to do work without his fault. In State of Kerala and Others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai , (2007) 6 SCC 524 holds that grant of monetary benefits with retrospective promotion depends upon consideration of various facets. When administration denies legitimate dues, the employee should be given full monetary benefits subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. Principle of ‘no work no pay’ cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb, there are exceptions where monetary benefits have been granted by the Courts. In somewhat similar factual position, Hon’ble Division Bench had granted actual monetary benefits to the petitioner in Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Another. , CWP No.4254 of 2022, decided on 30.12.2022. In the aforesaid case, petitioner had prayed for taking over his services from due date as per Government policy dated 03.10.2015. During pendency of the petition, services of the petitioner were taken from due date but on notional basis. Holding that petitioner was denied benefit for no fault of his, he was held entitled to actual benefits from due date. No other point was urged. In view of above, petitioner is entitled to actual monetary benefits for the two years of extended service wrongfully denied to him by the respondent. 5. Holding that petitioner was denied benefit for no fault of his, he was held entitled to actual benefits from due date. No other point was urged. In view of above, petitioner is entitled to actual monetary benefits for the two years of extended service wrongfully denied to him by the respondent. 5. For the forgoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed.The petitioner is held entitled to emoluments for two years i.e. from the date of his retirement w.e.f. 01.06.2023 to 31.05.2025. Actual payable emoluments for the period be paid to the petitioner after adjusting /setting off the pension paid to him for the period. This exercise be carried out within six weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.