Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16713 (HP)

Sarishti Katwal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-02-25

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Rejoinder to the petition not filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no rejoinder is intended to be filed. 2. Heard. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing and setting aside the rejection order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-6) whereby, the petitioner’s representation seeking NPA was arbitrarily declined on unjust and unsustainable grounds. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Non-Practice Allowance (NPA) to the petitioner in accordance with her appointment order dated 29.09.2022, treating her at par with her similarly situated counterparts who were appointed under the same selection process and are being paid NPA.” 4. The factual matrix involved in this case is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary Officer on contract basis upon the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee constituted for batch-wise recruitment vide notification dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-1). The appointment of Veterinary Officers was done on contract basis till further orders or renewal of contract after completion of one year whichever was earlier, on fixed emoluments of equal to 60% of first cell of level-18 (Rs.56,100-1,77,500) of the Pay Matrix i.e. (Rs.33,660/- + 20% NPA) per month, subject to verification of Character and Antecedents as per H.P. Financial Rules. The name of the petitioner is at serial No.23 in the said notification. As the petitioner was undergoing a Ph.D. programme, she sought an extension from the employer as far as the date of joining is concerned, which was duly granted to her and she joined her duties as a Veterinary Officer at Veterinary Hospital, Sayanj Bagra, District Mandi, H.P., on 05.07.2023. The joining of the petitioner was within the extended time granted to her by the employer to join the post. 5. After the issuance of notification dated 29.09.2022 and before the petitioner actually joined as a Veterinary Officer at Veterinary Hospital, Sayanj Bagra on 05.07.2023, the Finance Department of the respondent-State issued a notification dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) which reads as under:- “No.Fin-(C)B(7)-3/2021-1 Dated Shimla-2, 24th May, 2023. NOTIFICATION In partial modification of the department’s notifications Nos. 5. After the issuance of notification dated 29.09.2022 and before the petitioner actually joined as a Veterinary Officer at Veterinary Hospital, Sayanj Bagra on 05.07.2023, the Finance Department of the respondent-State issued a notification dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) which reads as under:- “No.Fin-(C)B(7)-3/2021-1 Dated Shimla-2, 24th May, 2023. NOTIFICATION In partial modification of the department’s notifications Nos. Fin-(C)B(7)-3/2021 dated 3rd January, 2022 and No.Fin-(C)B(7)-3/2021-I dated 2nd March, 2022, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order that the Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) will not be admissible for all Doctors recruited henceforth in Health & Family Welfare, Medical Education, Dental, Ayush and Animal Husbandry Departments of the State Government.” 6. In light of this notification after the petitioner joined her duties, she has not been paid the Non-Practicing Allowance and, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the denial of the Non-Practicing Allowance is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that notification dated 24.05.2023 could not have been applied by the Department retrospectively in the case of the petitioner as the appointment of the petitioner was before the issuance of notification dated 24.05.2023. Learned counsel submitted that simply because the petitioner joined after the issuance of notification dated 24.05.2023, the same did not render the petitioner ineligible to receive Non- Practicing Allowance for the reason that the terms and conditions of her appointment were never altered and she was allowed to join her post on the strength of notification Annexure P-1 itself. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the denial of the Non-Practicing Allowance to the petitioner in the facts of the case was not sustainable in the eyes of law and he prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent-Authorities to pay to the petitioner Non-Practicing Allowance to which she is entitled to as per her appointment letter (Annexure P-1) as from the date of her joining the post of Veterinary Officer. 8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General drew the attention of the Court to the reply of the respondent-State and submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of Non-Practicing Allowance has been rejected in terms of Annexure R-1 for the reason that as on the date when the petitioner joined her service, notification dated 24.05.2023 was in force and in terms of this notification, she was not entitled for Non-Practicing Allowance. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that if the petitioner had joined her post before issuance of the notification dated 24.05.2023, then, it would have been a different case, but, because, she did not join her post before 24.05.2023, therefore, the cannot take advantage of the benevolent act of the State, which allowed her extension so as to complete her Ph.D. Learned Deputy Advocate General also argued that terms governing NPA had changed as on the day when the petitioner joined the post of Veterinary Officer, obviously, she would be governed by the new terms and conditions. Therefore, he argued that there is no perversity in the act of the respondent-Department in denying the Non-Practicing Allowance to the petitioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the petition as well as the reply filed thereto and documents appended therewith. 10. The facts as have been narrated by me hereinabove are not in dispute. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary Officer vide notification dated 29.09.2022 on a fixed salary of Rs.33,660/-+20% NPA. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner did not join immediately on the issuance of notification dated 29.09.2022 and she joined as a Veterinary Officer on 05.07.2023. It is also a matter of record that before the petitioner had joined as a Veterinary Officer, a notification stood issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh 24.05.2023, in terms whereof, Non-Practicing Allowance was not admissible to Doctors, who were recruited thereafter. 11. A perusal of notification dated 24.05.2023 demonstrates that the Non-Practicing Allowance was withdrawn by the State prospectively in the sense that it was mentioned in this notification that the Non-Practicing Allowance will not be admissible to Doctors recruited thereafter in Health and Family Welfare, Medical Education, Dental, Ayush and Animal Husbandry Departments of the State Government. 12. In the present case, it is not as if the petitioner was recruited as a Veterinary Officer after 24.05.2023. She was recruited against the said post vide notification dated 29.09.2022. This Court again reiterates that notification dated 24.05.2023 did not abolish the Non-Practicing Allowance, which was being given to Officers including Veterinary Officers as on 24.05.2023. This notification only made the Non-Practicing Allowance not admissible, inter alia, to Veterinary Officers recruited after 24.05.2023. 13. She was recruited against the said post vide notification dated 29.09.2022. This Court again reiterates that notification dated 24.05.2023 did not abolish the Non-Practicing Allowance, which was being given to Officers including Veterinary Officers as on 24.05.2023. This notification only made the Non-Practicing Allowance not admissible, inter alia, to Veterinary Officers recruited after 24.05.2023. 13. Now, as far as the issue of the petitioner having joined the post on 05.07.2023 i.e., after 24.05.2023 is concerned, fact of the matter remains that the Department allowed her extension permitting her to join as a Veterinary Officer on 05.07.2023 on the strength of her appointment letter/notification dated 29.09.2022. It is not the case of the Department that any further notification was issued with regard to the appointment of the petitioner, in which, the terms and conditions of appointment, as were contained in notification dated 29.09.2022, were altered. It is also not the case of the State that no extension, as was prayed by the petitioner to join the post was granted to the petitioner by the Department. 14. Therefore, once the respondent-Department itself acquiesced to the request of the petitioner and allowed her to join the post on a later date, but, on the same terms and conditions, on which she was appointed vide notification dated 29.09.2022, obviously, Non-Practicing Allowance cannot be denied to her on the strength of a subsequent notification dated 24.05.2023. 15. This Court is not making any observation with regard to the validity of notification dated 24.05.2023, because, that is not the subject matter of dispute before this Court. All that this Court is observing is that as far as notification dated 24.05.2023 is concerned, terms of the language of the same are prospective in nature and as the appointment of the petitioner was before notification dated 24.05.2023 was issued, she could not have been denied Non-Practicing Allowance by taking advantage of notification dated 24.05.2023. 16. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondent-Department denying the Non-Practicing Allowance to the petitioner as is payable to her in terms of Annexure P-1 is held to be bad. The rejection of the representation of the petitioner in this regard is also held to be bad and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the Non-Practicing Allowance, to which she is entitled, in terms of notification date 29.09.2022. The rejection of the representation of the petitioner in this regard is also held to be bad and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the Non-Practicing Allowance, to which she is entitled, in terms of notification date 29.09.2022. The Non- Practicing Allowance from the month of April, 2026 onwards be paid to her regularly. As far as the arrears are concerned, the same be paid to her within a period of three months from today, failing which, the same shall entail simple interest @6% as from the date the judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.