2026:HHC:16059 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15082 of 2025 Decided on: 12.05.2026 Ankita Singh … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ Order or direction, directing the Respondents to pay the revised pay-stipend @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month in favour of the Petitioner, on the post of Sr.Resident/Tutor Specialists (Microbiology) in the Department of Microbiology at Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Ner Chowk, Mandi, District Mandi Himachal Pradesh in terms of Notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) from the due date i.e. 10.04.2025, along with 12% interest and arrears up to date, within a time bound manner, for all intents and purposes. ii). Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30326/2023 title The Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Vithal Rao as well as in SLP (Civil) No.3398/2024 titled State of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16059 Rajasthan & Ors Versus Gopal Bijawat, for dragging the petitioner into the unnecessary litigation contrary to the litigation policy framed by the respondents State, in the interest of justice.” 2. There is a very short controversy involved in this petition. The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Resident/ Tutor Specialist in terms of Office Order dated 28.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) in SLBSGMC, Mandi at Nerchowk, under the Direct (OBC) Category for a period of three years. She accepted the said tenure posting on the terms and conditions offered by the Department. Her grievance is that in terms of Notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), the stipend for Senior Resident/ Tutor Specialist and DNB-Super Specials & Senior Residents-Super Specialist (D.M./M.Ch.) in the Department of Medical Education & Research was revised with immediate effect from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, both for the 1st Year and 2nd Year as also the 3rd Year, but the benefit of the said pay revision has not been given to the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the act of the respondents of not conferring upon the petitioner the benefit of this Notification dated 10.04.2025, is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel submitted that though the petitioner is aware of the fact that Annexure P-6 is prospective in nature and is applicable only w.e.f. 10.04.2025, but the petitioner is entitled for the benefit thereof at least from the date of issuance of this Notification, as she is continuing to serve on the said tenure post in light of the protection given to her by the Hon’ble 3 2026:HHC:16059 Supreme Court of India in terms of its order dated 19.07.2024, copy whereof is appended with CMP No.8990 of 2026. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and she is not entitled for the benefit of Notification (Annexure P-6). Learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State submitted that the petitioner though is continuing on the strength of the interim order granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but the benefit of Notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) is to be extended to only those who were appointed as per the provisions of the Resident Doctor Policy of the State Government. As the petitioner was not appointed under the said Policy, but was appointed on contract basis, therefore, she is not entitled to the benefit for the said period. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), though prospectively. 6. The only reason, why State is denying the benefit thereof to the petitioner is that as per the State, the benefit of this Notification is to be given to those Senior Residents/ Tutor Specialists, who were appointed as per the provisions of the Resident Doctor Policy of the Department, whereas the Senior Residents/ Tutor Specialists, who were appointed in terms of the Contractual Policy dated 22.04.20216, are entitled for contractual salary/ 4 2026:HHC:16059 emoluments only in terms of the Contractual Policy. 7. Notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), in terms whereof, the stipend of Senior Residents/ Tutor Specialists was revised, reads as under:- “Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Medical Education & Research No.:HFW-B(F)6-1/2017-1-Loose (54117) Dated: Shimla the 10/04/2025 NOTIFICATION The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to revise the stipend for Sr. Residents/Tutor Specialists and DNB-Super Specialist & Senior Resident- Super Specialist Doctors (D.M./M.Ch.) in the Department of Medical Education & Research with immediate effect, in the public interest as under:- Sr.No. Category of post/ student Year Existing stipend per month/ per student (Doctor) Revised stipend per month/ per student (Doctor) 1. Senior Resident/Tutor Specialist 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Rs.60,000/- Rs.62,000/- Rs.65,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 2. DNB-Super Specialist & Sr. Residents-Super Specialist (D.M./M.Ch.) 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Rs.60,000/- Rs.62,000/- Rs.65,000/- Rs.1,30,000/- Rs.1,30,000/- Rs.1,30,000/- 2) The Stipend fixed in respect of Junior Resident Tutor General & PG(MD/MS) and DNB students vide this Department notification No. HFW- B(F)6-1/2017-1 dated 26-06-2021 Shall continue. (3) This issue with the prior approval of the competent authority. By Order Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh Dated: Shimla-2 the 10/04/2025.” 8. A perusal thereof demonstrates that in this Notification, no distinction was made between a Senior Resident/ Tutor Specialist etc. appointed under the Resident Doctor Policy and the one appointed on contractual basis. Nothing prevented the 5 2026:HHC:16059 Department to specify in the Notification that the revised emoluments shall be payable only to those who were appointed under the Resident Doctor Policy, had it been the intent of the Department to do so. In the absence of this being there in Notification dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), the State cannot be allowed to introduce something in the Notification, which does not otherwise exist in it. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Versus the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405, has been pleased to hold as under:- “The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." 6 2026:HHC:16059 10. Thus, obviously the respondents cannot now improve their case vis-a-vis the contents of Notification dated 10.04.2025, on the basis of the averments made in the reply. 11. When Notification dated 10.04.2025 does not distinguish between a Senior Resident/Tutor Specialist appointed under the Resident Doctor Policy vis-a-vis a contractual appointee, the Department cannot be permitted to rake up this distinction and discriminate between Senior Resident/ Tutor Specialists simply on the basis of the source of recruitment. 12. Otherwise also, as Senior Resident/ Tutor Specialist, be the one having been appointed under the Resident Doctor Policy or under Contractual Policy, are performing the same duties. There is no justification in not denying similar revised stipend to them. 13. Accordingly, in light of above observation, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not paying to the petitioner the revised stipend in terms of Notification dated 10.04.2025 as from the date of issuance of the said Notification is held to be bad and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the revised stipend for the post of Senior Resident/ Tutor Specialist w.e.f. 10.04.2025. 14. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 12, 2026 (Rishi)