High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 07 SHI CK 0004

Ram Krishan Kaushal vs State Of H.P. & Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 3 July 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Singh Thakur, J · Satyen Vaidya, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 4254 Of 1012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 325 words

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

1.

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:

“(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to extend service of the petitioner by one years with immediate effect or retrospectively from the day next to his superannuation with all consequential benefits for all purposes and intents alongwith arrears and interest thereon @ 18%.”

3.

It is not in dispute that respondents themselves have issued Notification dated 24.09.2015, (Annexure P-2), wherein inter alia it has been provided as under:-

“In suppression of the previous Notifications/Orders the Hon’ble Governor of the Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order that the National Awardee Teachers shall be entitled for two years extension in service as well as one additional increment in salary and the State Awardee Teachers shall be entitled for one year extension in service.”

4.

The only ground taken by the respondents to deny the benefit of aforesaid Notification is that the Policy for granting extension to State/National awardee teachers is under consideration for reviewing the same. The stand of the respondents is totally untenable as even in case the respondents have to take a decision to review the Policy, obviously such Policy can be made operative only prospectively and not retrospectively. That apart, we find this is a case of invidious discrimination where the persons similarly situated to the petitioner have already been granted extension of service of one year.

5.

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to allow this petition by directing the respondents to grant extension to the petitioner in terms of the Notification dated 24.09.2015 (supra) within a period of one week from today. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

6.

For compliance, to come up on 12th July, 2023.