IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.375 of 2026 a/w LPA No.345 of 2026 Decided on : 19.08.2026 1. LPA No.375 of 2026 Prem Singh and Others ...Appellants Versus State of HP and Ors. …Respondents. 2. LPA No.345 of 2026 Sudershan Kumar and Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of HP and Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA No.375 of 2026. Mr. Subhash Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA No.345 of 2026. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State, in both the appeal. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 Bipin Chander Negi, Judge By way of these two appeals, challenge is being laid to the judgments dated 07.04.2026 passed in CWP No.1500 of 2022, titled Manohar Lal and Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors. and CWP No.2155 of 2022, titled Sudershan Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors., whereby the writ petitions preferred by the present appellants have been dismissed. 2. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in the aforesaid two appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up together. Facts in LPA No.375 of 2026 arising out of CWP No.1500 of 2022 are being noticed for the adjudication of the present appeals. 3. With effect from April, 1993, the respondents had been releasing 95% grant-in-aid to 144 privately managed, recognized, and affiliated schools. However, from the list of 144 schools, inadvertently, 11 schools had been omitted. The appellants in the case at hand were serving in two such omitted schools. 4. The omission of the 11 schools had been noticed by the respondents, as is evident from letter dated 17.05.1999 3 placed on record (Page 49 of the paper-book). In terms of the said letter, grant-in-aid was to be released to the 11 omitted schools. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, CWP No. 1201 of 2010-B, titled Anil Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others was preferred by employees of one such omitted school. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 19.12.2011 (copy whereof has been placed on record at Pages 51-56 of the paper-book). In terms of the judgment delivered, respondents were directed to pay grant-in-aid with effect from April, 1993. 6. Based on the aforesaid, the present appellants had approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal qua release of grant-in-aid with effect from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1998. In this respect, O.A. bearing No.4126 of 2018, titled Manohar Lal and Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors., had been filed (copy whereof has been placed on record at Pages 57-59 of the paper-book). The same was disposed of vide judgment dated 08.08.2018 in terms of the judgment delivered in CWP No.1201 of 2010-B, decided on 19.12.2011. 4 7. Subsequent thereto, the appellants in the case at hand had preferred CWP No.1500 of 2022 claiming protection of pay with effect from the year 1993. The same had been denied by the learned Single Judge on the ground/principle of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. As according to the learned single judge relief/claim now being raised qua protection of pay with effect from the year 1993 should have been raised when release of grant-in-aid with effect from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1998 was sought by filing, O.A. bearing No.4126 of 2018, titled Manohar Lal and Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors. The aforesaid omission as per the impugned judgement was fatal. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 9. The schools wherein the appellants had been working were included in the list of 144 privately managed, affiliated, and recognized schools which were being paid grant-in-aid by the respondent-State. However, in so far as the schools wherein the appellants were working, the same had been omitted from the directory of schools. The said omission was noted in letter dated 17.05.1999 (Page 49 of the 5 paper-book). On noticing the omission, the mistake was rectified by the respondents and grant-in-aid was ordered to be released to the schools wherein the appellants had been working. 10. The staff of one of the 11 omitted schools had filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.1201 of 2010-B, titled Anil Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 19.12.2011. By virtue of the judgment so passed (page 51 of the paper book), the respondents had been directed to pay grant-in-aid with effect from April 1993 to the said school, which had been omitted from the list of 144 schools receiving grant-in-aid. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, present appellants had also filed an OA No.4126 of 2018, decided on 08.08.2018, whereby the erstwhile Tribunal had directed grant of benefits to the appellants in terms of judgment delivered in CWP No.1201 of 2010-B, decided on 19.12.2011. 12. The erstwhile Tribunal, while disposing of O.A. bearing No. 4126 of 2018 vide judgment dated 08.08.2018 on the basis of the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1201 of 2010-B, could not have 6 granted relief more than what had been granted by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the expression "consequential benefits" used in paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 08.08.2018 passed in O.A. No. 4126 of 2018 is inconsequential. Therefore, even an execution petition qua the judgment passed by the Tribunal would not be maintainable, once it is an admitted position that grant-in-aid arrears with effect from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1998, as prayed for in the original application, stand released. The relief granted therein stands satisfied. 13. The relief prayed for in O.A. No. 4126 of 2018 filed by the appellants in the case at hand, decided on 08.08.2018, was only to the effect of release of grant-in-aid with effect from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1998. The relief so sought is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:- 7(i) “That the respondent department may kindly be directed to release the Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1998 to the applicants with all consequential benefits.” 14. The specific claim in CWP No.1500 of 2022 wherefrom the present LPA No.375 of 2026 arises is evident 7 from paragraph 9 of the writ petition; the same is being reproduced herein for ready reference: “That in the case of the petitioners having rendered services in the then respondent aided school, the salary along with the increments have been given from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1998. However, the respondent department did not protect the 5 number of increments. given to them from the year 1993 to 1998, in their pay for the year 1999. It is submitted that the pay of the said staff of the above said schools was protected w.e.f. the year 1993 whereas in the case of the petitioners their pay has been protected since the year 1998 onwards. This has resulted into an anomaly.” 15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that when the present appellants had preferred O.A. bearing No. 4126 of 2018, at that particular point of time, claim for pay protection as is being sought was very much available. However, no such claim was raised. Omission to raise such a claim has correctly been held to be barred on the principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, applicable to writ proceedings, by the learned Single Judge. No infirmity or illegality in the findings so returned has been pointed out by the appellants calling for interference by this Court. 8 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeals being devoid of any merit are dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th August, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)