( 2026:HHC:39444 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 16077 of 2026. Decided on :16 th September , 2026 Narender Singh Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Considering the grievance of the petitioner, the nature of the order impugned and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. CWP No. 11846 of 2025 was preferred by the petitioner seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur and Others vs. State of H.P.2 The 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023 decided on 07.04.2025 2 ( 2026:HHC:39444 ) writ petition was disposed of on 24th July 2025 with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner preferred in that regard in accordance with law within timelines indicated therein. Pursuant to the directions issued, Deputy Director School Education (Elementary), Chamba, passed order on 10.03.2026 rejecting the case of the petitioner on the grounds that: (i) Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the department against the decision rendered in Inder Singh Thakur, therefore, the decision cannot be applied to the petitioner as the aforesaid decision cannot be held applicable to the petitioner as the same has not yet attained finality; (ii) In terms of Revised Pay Rules 2022, first amendment carried out under notification issued on 06.09.2022, the petitioner is not entitled for revised pay as he was already granted grade pay in the revised pay scale. 3. It is well-settled that mere filing or pendency of Letters Patent Appeal does not amount to stay of the judgment against which Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. Impact of mere pendency of Letters Patent Appeal upon the grant of benefits accruing to a person in terms of judgment was considered by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Hans 3 ( 2026:HHC:39444 ) Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that “an impression has been left on our minds that the concerned authorities failed to reinstate and to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner soon after the decision of the learned Single judge, even though at the material time no stay order was operative, as they appeared to be entertaining the belief that since a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred, the matter had once again become sub judice and that, therefore, there was no legal obligation to grant the benefits accruing due to the petitioner pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge. This belief, which appears to have been entertained by the concerned authorities, is wholly unwarranted. Once a case is decided, it is the bounden duty of the State and its subordinates to implement with the utmost expedition the said decision. In a Government which is ruled by law, there must be complete awareness to carry out faithfully and honestly the decisions rendered by Courts of Law after effective adjudication. Then only will private individuals, organizations, and institutions learn to respect the decisions of the Court. In absence of such attitude on the part of all concerned, 3 1985 Criminal Law Journal, 1030 4 ( 2026:HHC:39444 ) chaotic conditions might arise and the functions assigned to the Courts of Law under the Constitution might be rendered a futile exercise. It requires to be emphasized in this connection that mere preferment of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decision under appeal, and that till an application for stay is moved and granted by the Appellate Court, or in the alternative, the Court which rendered the decision is moved and grants an interim stay of its decision pending the preferment of the appeal and grant of stay by the Appellate Court, the decision continues to be binding. Indeed, noncompliance with the decision on the mere ground that an appeal is contemplated to be preferred or is actually preferred, and that, therefore, the matter is sub judice, may amount to contempt of Court, punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act”. The Court held as under:- “Before parting with the matter, we regard it to be expedient to observe that an impression has been left on our minds that the concerned authorities failed to reinstate and to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner soon after the decision of the learned ingle Judge, even though at the material time no stay order was operative, as they appeared to be entertaining the belief that since a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred, the matter had once again become sub judice and that, therefore, there was no legal obligation to grant the benefits accruing due to the petitioner 5 ( 2026:HHC:39444 ) pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge. This belief, which appears to have been entertained by the concerned authorities, is wholly unwarranted. Once a case is decided, it is the bounden duty of the State and its subordinates to implement with the utmost expedition the said decision. In a Government which is ruled by law, there must be complete awareness to carry out faithfully and honestly the decisions rendered by courts of law after effective adjudication. Then only will private individuals, organizations, and institutions learn to respect the decisions of the courts. In absence of such attitude on the part of all concerned, chaotic conditions might arise and the functions assigned to the courts of law under the Constitution might be rendered a futile exercise. It requires to be emphasized in this connection that mere preferment of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decision under appeal, and that till an application for stay is moved and granted by the appellate court, or in the alternative, the court which rendered the decision is moved and grants an interim stay of its decision pending the preferment of the appeal and grant of stay by the appellate court, the decision continues to be operative. Indeed, non-compliance with the decision on the mere ground that an appeal is contemplated to be preferred or is actually preferred, and that, therefore, the matter is sub judice, may amount to contempt of court punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The decision of the Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra vs. Bhimsen Dixit, AIR 1972 SC 2466: (1973 Cri LJ 19), places the matter beyond dispute, doubt or debate as regards this aspect.” Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others4 held that unless an appeal is listed and there is an interim order mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the judgment. Portion relevant to the context as under:- 4 Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 19038/2022 6 ( 2026:HHC:39444 ) “Though, such contention is put forth by the respondents, keeping in view the provisions as contained in Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, unless the appeal is listed and there is an interim order, the mere filing of the appeal would not operate as a stay. If that be so, the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2021 would enure to the benefit of the petitioner as on today and the rejection of the NOC only on the ground that the appeal has been filed, would not be justified. In that view, the High Court was also not justified in rejecting the petition. Accordingly, the Order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11593 of 2022 is set aside. Consequently, the rejection of the NOC by the District Magistrate is held unjustified and the District Magistrate is directed to take note of the decree passed on 25.08.2022 and issue the NOC within a period of two weeks from this day to the petitioner, which shall however, remain subject to the result of the appeal pending before the High Court.” The court can also take judicial notice of the fact that respondents have implemented Inder Singh Thakur2 in several cases. Therefore, on account of mere pendency of LPA, not applying the decision in Inder Singh Thakur2 to the case of the petitioner amounts to overreaching the judgment rendered in Inder Singh Thakur2. The second reason assigned by the respondents for not allowing the benefit of revised scale to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has already availed the grade pay in the revised scale is also based upon misconception. This is probably for the reason that respondent, that is the Deputy Director 7 ( 2026:HHC:39444 ) School Education (Elementary), Chamba, has refused to look into the decision rendered in Inder Singh Thakur2, which has dealt with the aforesaid aspect as well. It is not expected of the concerned authorities to mechanically turn down the representations of the employees by assigning frivolous reasons, compelling them to come to court over and over again seeking redressal of the same relief. Such action not only causes harassment to the litigant but in turn also results in frittering away the time of the Court in avoidable litigation. 4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned office order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set aside with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by respondent No.3 in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund, 2025. Fresh consideration order be now passed keeping in view the directions already issued in CWP No. 11846 of 2025 within a period of four weeks from today. Copy of the decision so arrived at be communicated the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 8 ( 2026:HHC:39444 ) 16th September, 2026. (jai)