2026:HHC:35287 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16657 of 2024 Decided on: 20 .08.2026 Sh. Rajender Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Jaswal, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned orders dated 10.08.2022 & 24.09.2022 (Annexure P-13 & Annexure- 14 respectively) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the monetary benefits on actual from the initial date of regularization i.e. 10.03.2008 as granted by the Ld. Tribunal vide its order dated 24.01.2019 in OA no. 5517/2015 and pay all the arrears with interest. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of earned leave, medical leave as per the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the CWP No. 5043/2022 Titled Sunita 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:35287 Sangroli V/s State of H.P & Ors, whereby the benefit of Earned Leave to the petitioners from the initial date of regularization has been allowed.” 2. The issue involved in this writ petition is within a very narrow compass. The petitioner had earlier approached erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 5517 of 2015, titled Rajinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Others, which original application was disposed of by the erstwhile learned Tribunal vide order dated 24th January 2019, relevant portion whereof reads as under: “5. In view of the above, the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment in CWP No. 811 of 2011, and the connected matters, with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority that subject to the above verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said judgment, if the same has attained finality/implemented, shall also be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, if any, as per law, within months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said authority by the applicant. 6. The original application also M.A. No.3022 of 2018 stand disposed of in the above terms.” 3. In compliance thereof, in terms of office order dated 10th August 2022 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner has been offered regular appointment from the initial date of his appointment, i.e., 3 2026:HHC:35287 10.03.2008, with consequential benefits, however, the benefits have been given on a notional basis with a rider that actual financial benefits shall be from the date of the order/judgment of the erstwhile Tribunal dated 24.01.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the respondent-department, in giving notional benefits to the petitioner from the date of his appointment up to the date of passing of the judgment, i.e. 24.01.2019, by the erstwhile learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. By referring to the order passed by the erstwhile learned Tribunal, he has submitted that the learned Tribunal was clear and categorical that in case the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the judgment being relied upon, the benefit thereof would be extended to him along with consequential benefits. He submitted that as the petitioner was covered by the judgment in issue, which resulted in issuance of Annexure P-13, the consequential benefits could not have been made notional from 10.03.2008 up to the date of the passing of the judgment, i.e. 24.01.2019. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has taken the Court through the reply filed by the respondents and submitted that the needful was done by the Department in light of the judgment passed by the erstwhile learned Tribunal in favour of the petitioner and even consequential benefits stand released to him 4 2026:HHC:35287 from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 10.03.2008. He submitted that actual benefits have been given from the date of judgment of the learned Tribunal and notional benefits have been given between 10.03.2008 and 24.01.2019 strictly as per the approval conveyed by the Government in consultation with the Advisory Department and the same cannot be questioned. No other point was urged. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the respondents in granting notional benefits to the petitioner from the date of his appointment, i.e., 10.03.2008 up to 24.01.2019, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Learned Tribunal, while disposing of the original application, was clear and categorical that subject to verification of facts, the benefit of the judgment was to be extended with all consequential benefits. In terms of Annexure P-13, the petitioner has been offered appointment on a regular basis from the initial date of appointment, i.e., 10.03.2008 (the date on which he was earlier appointed on contract basis). This having been done, the consequential benefits could not have been restricted so as to be notional from 10.03.2008 up to 24.01.2019, because the erstwhile 5 2026:HHC:35287 learned Tribunal neither passed any such order nor made any such observation in its order. The denial of consequential benefits as from the date of regularisation is not sustainable in law. The benefits are to be governed by the order passed by the erstwhile learned Tribunal and not by the dictates of the Government or Advisory Department. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that in the precedent judgment relied upon (Ashwani Kumar), benefits from the date of regularisation were given on a notional basis. 8. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents in granting notional benefits only to the petitioner from the date of his regularisation up to the date of the order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal is held to be bad in law. Office order Annexure P-13 and consequential office order of pay fixation Annexure P-14 to this extent is read down to be bad in law. The respondents are directed to pay actual consequential benefits to the petitioner from 10.03.2008 to 24.01.2019 also. Let needful in terms of the directions passed herein above be done within a period of three months from today. In case, the same is not done within three months from the date of judgment, the due amount shall entail interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till acual realization. 9. The petitioner, as prayed for, is given liberty to approach the Authorities afresh by way of a representation as far as his claims 6 2026:HHC:35287 with regard to earned leaves and medical leaves are concerned, with the observation that if any such representation is preferred by him within four weeks from today, the same shall be decided in light of the contents thereof, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 20 , 2026 (narender)