2026:HHC:24140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 174 of 2025 Decided on: 23.06.2026 Reena Sharma & others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be actual issued to declare the action of the respondent not granting actual monetary benefits to the petitioner while passing the order dated 5th of October 2024 i.e. Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set-aside to that extent. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be actual issued to the respondents department directing them to grant actual financial/monetary benefit to the petitioners w.e.f. from initial date of their appointment once they have been granted regularization from their initial date of appointment.” 2. Learned Assistant Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 22.06.2026, received from Director of School Education, which read as under:- “I have the honour to submit that the instant CWP was listed before the Hon'ble High Court on 19.08.2025 when the Hon'ble Court has passed following orders:- "Reply is awaited despite opportunity dated 03.06.2025. Let the petition be listed before the Hon'ble Court for appropriate orders." In this regard, it is submitted that the Petitioners of the present Writ Petition were appointed as Trained Graduate 2 2026:HHC:24140 Teacher (TGTs) on contract basis in the year 2009 and 2010 and their services were subsequently regularized in the year 2016. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, their services were treated as deemed regular from the date of their initial appointment/joining on contract basis, vide Respondent Department. Further, in order to maintain parity with similarly placed employees, Office Order No. EDN(Ele.)H(2)B(2)54/2013- CC dated 19.09.2025 was issued by the Respondent Department whereby actual monetary benefits that were earlier granted notionally were extended to the Petitioners, restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the filing of the writ petition. The copy of the Office Order dated 19.09.2025 is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble High Court. It is worthwhile to mention here that the monetary benefits only for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the Writ Petition is no more Res-Integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 9135 of 2023 titled as "Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P & Ors.", whereby the Hon'ble Court after relaying upon the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble apex Court held that arrears beyond three years cannot be claimed/granted. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:- "10. Needless to say that since the writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on 18.11.2023, therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to actual monetary benefits only for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition on [18.11.2023] in terms of the mandate of law in case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274; State of Madya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538; Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797, followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 (2022 SCC online S C 641] decided on 18.5.2022, and arrears beyond three years cannot be claimed/granted." Thus, the monetary benefits (arrears) in r/o Petitioners have been legally restricted to a period of three years only immediately preceding the date of filing of the Writ Petition, in accordance with the law laid down in "Jai Dev Gupta Vs State of HP (reported in AIR SCC 2819), where 3 2026:HHC:24140 in it has been held that "actual monetary benefits be restricted for three years prior to filing of the petition as the petitioners has approached the court at a belated stage." It is a settled proposition of law that a person must approach the Court within a reasonable time for redressal of his/her grievances. In the present CWP, the Petitioners were appointed in the year 2009-2010 and filed the Writ Petition in the year 2024, which constitutes a belated approach. Although the original applications were filed by similarly placed employees in the case of Narender Singh Thakur before the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal in the year 2014(later transferred to the Hon'ble High Court in CWPOA No. 2782 of 2019), whereas the Petitioners of the present petition are fence-sitters as they have filed the Writ Petition in the Year, 2024 an did not approach the Court at the relevant time. Therefore, Petitioners in the present CWP cannot claim parity with those person who had approached the Hon'ble Court well in time or much earlier to the present Petitioners. Hence the monetary benefits are restricted to three years in accordance with law and judgment passed in Jai Dev Gupta Vs State of HP, reported in AIR SCC 2819 and further instructions issued by the Finance Department H.P vide letter No. Fin (PR)-B(7)16/98-III (Agriculture) dated 15.12.2011, the Respondent Department has rightly imposed the condition of payment of arrear to the present Petitioners three years prior to filing the Civil Writ Petition. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Department has taken the same stand in the similar matter in Ex. Pet. No. 1247/2024 in CWP No. 1872/2021 tiled as "Netter Singh & Ors. Vs. State of H.P & Ors." and the Hon'ble Court has disposed of the Execution Petition on dated 09.12.2025 by validating the action of Respondent Department. Copy of the judgment dated 09.12.2025 is enclosed herewith for kind perusal. You are, therefore, requested to apprise the Hon'ble Court accordingly and pray the Hon'ble Court to dispose of the present CWP.” 3. In light of these instructions, this petition is disposed of with the direction that needful be done now on the basis of these instructions in the case of the petitioners also by restricting the 4 2026:HHC:24140 condition of payment of arrears to three years prior to filing of the petition. The arrears be released expeditiously, preferably within three months from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 23, 2026 (Rishi)