CWPOA/1240/2019 on 30 December 2025

1. The regularized teacher should be medically fit for the post being considered regularization. The incumbent will have to submit the medical fitness certificate for the Chief Medical Officer/ Medical Officer of the illaqua/ area concerned at the time of his/ her time joining.

2. He/ She have to submit a certificate to the effect that if married he/she is having one living spouse.

3. He/ She shall have to submit attested copy of all academic/ professional certificate i.e. matric onwards.

4. He/ She shall have to furnish a declaration to the effect that he/she is not a dismissed employee

REPORTABLE

of any central/ state Govt./ semi Govt. PUS or any autonomous body.

5. He/She shall have to take an oath of allegiance /faithfulness to the constitution of India.

6. The candidate belonging to SC/ST/OBC will furnish the requisite certificate on the prescribed proforma duly issued by the Magistrate Ist Class of the illaqua concerned.

7. Her retention in service is subject to his/her character and antecedents being found satisfactory which should be got verified by the concerned Principal/ Headmaster of the concerned school with in the stipulated period.

8. He/ She will have to give in writing whether he/she was ever convicted by any court or not. If yes the details of offence and punishment which was imposed be stated. Cancelling of facts will be liable for termination of service if comes to the notice at any stage.

9. An undertaking to this effect be taken from the concerned appointee that he/she has not concealed his/her qualification/bonafide resident of Himachal Pradesh category to which he/she belongs/ marital status and any other relevant information if comes to the notice at any stage.

10. The concerned Head of the institution will have to got verified the academic/ professional documents from the concerned university/ board.

Sd-

Dy. Director of Elementary Education,

Kangra at Dharamshala. Endst. No. Even

Dated Dharamshala the Sep 2023 Copy for information and necessary action to:-

1. The Director of Elementary Education HP Shimla for information pleases.

2. The District treasury officer of district Kangra HP.

3. The Chief Medical Officer Kangra at Dharamshala.

4. The Principal/ Headmaster of the concerned school with the directions that before accepting the joining of the teacher, all the codal formalities as per terms and conditions may be completed.

5. The concerned candidate/Teacher.

6. Guard file.

Sd/-

Dy. Director of Elementary Education,

Kangra at Dharamshala.

REPORTABLE

ANALYSIS:

7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the intervening developments in view of the passing of orders dated 21.09.2023 [supra], this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for giving regularization as Shastri stands accorded to her in terms of the office orders issued on 21.09.2023 w.e.f. 04.09.2010 and therefore, the claim for regularization as Shastri from the date of completion of 08 years of contractual continuous service has become infructuous; except for surviving grievance as detailed in succeeding para(s). SURVIVING GRIEVANCE:

7(i). Consequent upon the passing of orders dated 21.09.2023, the surviving grievance is as to whether the condition of notional benefits denying the actual monetary benefits to the petitioner as Shastri on regular basis from 04.09.2010 till the date of passing of regularization orders on 21.09.2023 and/or joining thereto stands the test

REPORTABLE

of judicial scrutiny or not. Upon considering the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the condition of notional benefits inserted in the orders dated 21.09.2023 issued by the State Authorities, resulting in denying the actual monetary benefits to the petitioner as Shastri for the period from 04.09.2010 till 21.09.2023 cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and the same is declared inoperative, illegal and arbitrary, for the following reasons:- 7(ii). Indisputably, once during the pendency of instant petition, the State Authorities have issued an office order on 21.09.2023 regularizing the petitioner as Shastri w.e.f. 04.09.2010 then, the condition imposed in the said order in treating period of service from 04.09.2010 till 21.09.2023 as notional has resulted in denying actual financial benefits to the petitioner for this period is unfair, unjust, illegal and arbitrary, for the reason; that firstly, once the petitioner had became eligible for consideration for regularization on completion of

REPORTABLE

08 years of continuous service w.e.f. 04.09.2010 or 01.01.2011 [whichever is beneficial] but such an accrued right was denied without any fault attributable to the petitioner, then in such an eventuality, the State Authorities cannot take advantage of its own wrong by inserting the condition of notional benefits and such condition cannot sustain in eyes of law; and secondly, the plea of the State Authorities that on the issuance of new scheme dated 07.05.2015, regularization was to be given on completion of 05 years contract service can neither be applied nor involved to the prejudice of the petitioner; and thirdly, the condition of notional benefits amounts to penalizing the petitioner for the inaction, faults and wrongs of the respondents in not considering her case for regularization from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service w.e.f. 04.09.2010 or w.e.f. 1.01.2011 [whichever is beneficial]; and fourthly, the condition of notional benefits is a camouflage for denying the service benefits which

REPORTABLE

would have accrued to the petitioner in normal course but were denied to the petitioner without any fault attributable her; and fifthly, inserting the condition of notional benefits has visited the petitioner with civil consequences and therefore the insertion of such a condition, denying the actual monetary benefits, without affording a personal hearing and without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner reveals unfairness and unreasonableness in State action; and sixthly, the contention of Learned State Counsel that condition of notional benefits was inserted on the principle of “no work no pay” is erroneous in law; seventhly, the right to receive the monetary benefits i.e. pay and allowances/salary which would have accrued to the petitioner in the normal course amounts to depriving her of salary i.e. pay and allowances, which is a property but without there being an law, which stipulates for depriving an employee of salary/pay allowances and thus in absence of any law, action of the State Authorities is violative

REPORTABLE

of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; and eighthly, the contention of Learned State Counsel that the condition of notional benefits is based on Fundamental Rule 17 is misconceived, for the reason, that Fundamental Rule 17 is not attracted in fact-situation of present case; and Fundamental Rule 17 applies in a case where an officer was appointed or promoted to a post and such officer assumes the duties of that post in normal course; and this rule cannot apply, where an officer was due for appointment or promotion to a post but was deprived of his right to assume duties of that posts by delaying such appointment or promotion from due date as in this case; and even provisio to Fundamental Rule 17 cannot form the basis to deny the actual monetary benefits i.e. pay and allowances when, the non-assumption of duties as Shastri on regular basis w.e.f. 04.09.2010 [now given on 21.09.2023 w.e.f. 04.09.2010] was due to the inaction or delayed action of Respondents inter-se and such delay or inaction was not at

REPORTABLE

all attributable to the petitioner; and in these circumstances, the contention of Learned State Counsel placing reliance on Fundamental Rule 17 is misplaced and is turned down; and lastly, the condition of notional benefits and the denial of pay and allowances/salary by involving the plea of “no work no pay” cannot sustain, for the reason, that the principle of “no work no pay” cannot be involved, in case an employee, alike the petitioner was ready and willing to work as regular Shastri but was denied the right to work without any fault unsustainable to her and more-so, when, petitioner was fully eligible and neither any deficiency nor shortcoming in work, conduct or performance was ever reported/conveyed to her and in these circumstances, the plea of “no work no pay” could not have been invoked by the Respondents so as to cause prejudice and disadvantage of petitioner, in the teeth of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed hereinafter:-

REPORTABLE

MANDATE OF LAW: GRANTING MONETARY BENEFITS UPON RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION:

7(iii). In State of Andhra Pradesh Versus K.V. L. Narasimha Rao and others, (1999) 4 SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that after grant of retrospective promotion or regularization, an employee who was deprived of the right to work earlier shall be given all monetary benefits, in the following terms:- “5. In normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are effected all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier. However, on the reorganisation of States a large number of officers stood allotted from different States to the newly formed State and their services had to be intergrade on various principles and several agencies were involved in the same. The steps to be taken thereto were one of formulation of principles, publication of a provisional inter State seniority list, inviting objections thereto, consideration of those objections in consultation with the Central Govt. and acting upon its directions to bring the seniority list in conformity with such directions. This entire exercise involved a good deal of time and gave rise to extraordinary situation. It is in those circumstances that Rules

REPORTABLE

contained in the Fundamental Rule 26 or Rule 40 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations have been framed. As a matter of fact, rules of erstwhile State regarding seniority are not applicable in the new State as allottees are governed by the Act and seniority is finalised therein. Even so, we do not see that there is any impediment to frame new rules affecting conditions of service off such allottees but in conformity with the Act. Surely new rules cannot be brushed aside by saying that they are not applicable to cases coming under the Act. There is no contention either in the High Court or before us that they are formed in contravention of the Act. In this background we fail to see as to why the Rules are not applicable to the respondents as held by the High Court.”

7(iv). In State of Kerala and others Versus E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, it has been mandated that after according retrospective promotion [or regularization], an employee who was denied benefits earlier shall be entitled to all benefits, including the monetary benefits and the principle of “no work no pay”, cannot be invoked for denying such benefits, in the following terms:- “4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that grant of retrospective benefit on promotional post cannot

REPORTABLE

be given to the incumbent when he has not worked on the said post. Therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit on the promotional post from 15-6-1972. In support thereof, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Virender Kumar v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore and Union of India v. Tarsem Lal. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the decisions given by this Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, Vasant Rao Roman v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava. We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were

REPORTABLE

appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle “no work no pay” cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also.

5. However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15-9-1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary.

7(v). In Ramesh Kumar Versus Union of India and others, (2015) 14 SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined that incase, an employee was not at fault but was denied the right to work by the respondent then, after grant of retrospective promotion [or regularization] as the case may be, such an employee is entitled to all service benefits,

REPORTABLE

including monetary benefits and principle of “no work no pay”, is not applicable in such a case, in the following terms:- “13. The respondents have advanced the argument that the denial of pay and allowances is on the principle of “no work no pay” and no injustice has been done to the appellant since he has not actually worked in the promotional post of Naib Subedar during the aforesaid period. It was submitted that the benefit of pay and allowances was rightly awarded w.e.f. 13-11-2000, the date on which the appellant actually assumed the rank of Naib Subedar but his seniority was maintained so as to protect his interest in his further promotions. 15. We are conscious that even in the absence of statutory provision, normal rule is “no work no pay”. In appropriate cases, a court of law may take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The principle of “no work no pay” would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts of the present case when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with the ante-dated seniority from 01.08.1997 and maintaining his seniority along with his batchmates, it would be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in the

REPORTABLE

promotional position of Naib Subedar.”

7(vi). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gowramma C. (Dead) by Legal Representatives Versus Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and another, (2022) 11 SCC 794, has mandated that where an employee was kept out of work and was denied the right to work on the post at relevant time then, upon grant of retrospective appointment or promotion or regularization such an employee cannot be denied the fruits due to said employee and therefore in such an eventuality, all monetary benefits have to be released to said employee, in the following terms:- “13. The most important question is whether the employee is at fault in any manner. If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee. In such circumstances, no doubt, the question relating to alternative employment that the employee may have resorted to, becomes relevant. There is also the aspect of discretion which is exercised

REPORTABLE

by the Court keeping in view the facts of each case. As we have already noticed, this is a case where apart from the charge of the employee having produced false caste certificate, there is no other charge. Therefore, we would think that interests of justice, in the facts of this, would be subserved, if we enhance the back wages from 50% to 75% of the full back wages, which she was otherwise entitled. The appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgments will stand modified and the respondents shall calculate the amount which would be equivalent to 75% of the back wages and disburse the amount remaining to be paid under this judgment within a period of six weeks from today to the additional appellants.”

7(vii). In Civil Writ Petition No. 3185 of 2022, titled as Dina Nath & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, decided on 15.05.2023, the Division Bench of this Court directed release of all consequential benefits including monetary benefits from the date such benefits were due but were denied and subsequently granted to an employee, in the following terms:- “4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that being senior to respondent No.6, petitioner No.1. Dina Nath. was to be promoted on

REPORTABLE

the date of which Roshan Lal, respondent No.6, was promoted vide order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) and further, as now, claim of the petitioners has been found legal, just, valid and genuine and in place of respondent No.6, petitioner No.1 Dina Nath has been promoted, petitioner Dina Nath is also entitled for promotion with retrospective effect from the date from which his junior respondent No.6, Roshan Lal, was promoted.

5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of considered view that claim of the petitioner is genuine and Valid and accordingly we direct to extend the benefits of promotion to petitioner Dina Nath with retrospective effect i.e. 31.03. 2022 alongwith all consequential benefits including monetary benefits from 31.03. 2022, the date from which his junior respondent No.6, Roshan Lal, was promoted in his place. Needful be done on or before 30.06.2023.”

7(viii). In CWP No.1319 of 2023 titled as Rakesh Kaplex Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 03.08.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after relying upon the judgment in case of Ramesh Kumar [supra], has directed to release actual monetary benefits after granting of retrospective promotions [or regularization] as the case

REPORTABLE

may be when, such an employee, cannot be made to suffer for no fault attributable to him in denying him the rightful to hold such posts from the due date and in these circumstances, the condition of “Notional Benefits” was set aside, in the following terms:- “5(ii) In the facts of the case, admittedly the petitioner was not at fault for having not been promoted at the relevant time alongwith his juniors. Fault, if any, lay with the respondents. The pleaded stand of the respondents was that the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 06.03.2021, however, he failed to join under this order. But the fact is that the respondents have not been able to establish that the aforesaid promotion order dated 06.03.2021 was ever served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was due for promotion in the year 2020 and his case was accordingly considered by the DPC that was convened in December, 2020 alongwith other incumbents. For want of his ACRs, petitioner was left out at that time. All throughout petitioner has been representing to the respondents for his promotion to the post of TGT from due date. Had he been aware of his promotion to the post of TGT under order dated 06.03.2021 as is contended by the respondents, there would have been no occasion for him to continue to represent to the respondents or to file this writ petition seeking his promotion as TGT. The

REPORTABLE

order dated 06.03.2021, if issued, remained in office files of the respondents. It was never brought to the knowledge of the petitioner. It never saw light of the day. This aspect stands duly established in view of various orders passed in this petition from time to time. It is for this reason that the respondents have now issued a fresh order dated 22.07.2023 promoting the petitioner as TGT retrospectively from 06.03.2021. Under the circumstances, petitioner is entitled for actual benefits of his retrospective promotion from 06.03.2021 and not notional. For the fault of the respondents, he cannot be made to suffer.

The petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be denied financial benefits. Had he been promoted by the respondents in accordance with law at the relevant time; had he been issued promotion order at the relevant time he would have served as TGT (N.M). Employer/ respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of its wrong and the employee/ petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents /employer. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all due and admissible benefits on actual basis to the petitioner on account of his retrospective promotion to the post of TGT (N.M.) from 06.03.2021. This exercise be carried out by the respondents within four weeks from today.”

REPORTABLE

7(ix). In CWP No. 3276 of 2023 titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 31.10.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has negated that the plea of “no work no pay” was not applicable, when, an employee who was eligible was deprived of the consideration for promotion or regularization or right to hold the post [as the case may be] upon passing of order entitling him for holding the post retrospectively from the date it was due but was denied to an employee without any fault, then, all monetary benefits shall be granted, in the following terms:- “3. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he has been denied the promotion to the post of Lecturer from due date i.e. 04.10.2017, when his junior were promoted.

5. In its short reply, respondent No. 2 has stated that vide order dated 11.08.2023 i.e. after the filing of this petition, petitioner has been promoted as Lecturer (History) w.e.f. 04.10.2017, on notional basis. The claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits has been denied on the principle of ‘No work No pay’.

REPORTABLE

6. In view of the stand taken by the official respondents, only the question that survives for determination is with respect to the entitlement of petitioner to the monetary benefits of the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 04.10.2017.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition, petitioner cannot be denied the monetary benefits as available to the post of Lecturer (History) w.e.f 04.10.2017, as no fault has either been alleged or proved against the petitioner. The official respondents have further not been able to justify the delay in correction of the seniority position and consequential promotion to the post from due date.”

Based on the above factual matrix and mandate of law as detailed hereinabove; the action of the State Authorities regularizing the petitioner as Shastri from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous contractual service by issuing the orders on 21.09.2023 regularizing her w.e.f. 04.09.2010 renders the prayer for regularization infructuous but the condition of “notional benefits” in the orders of regularization issued on 21.09.2023 resulting in denying the actual monetary benefits i.e. pay and allowances which would have been

REPORTABLE

due and payable in the normal course had she been regularized at the relevant time in the month of September then, the belated regularization given by the State Authorities cannot be a ground to deny the legal entitlements i.e. monetary benefits accruing from pay and allowances w.e.f. 04.09.2010 to 21.09.2023, and such denial does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the adversarial condition of notional benefits is without authority of law and amounts to going premium-leverage to the State Authorities for their inaction and/or delay and therefore, the aforesaid condition cannot sustain and the said condition is quashed and set- aside; entitling the petitioner for “consequential benefits” as a Shastri teacher on regular basis w.e.f. 04.09.2010 till 21.09.2023 and her joining as such on regular basis thereon.

8. No other point was raised/argued.

REPORTABLE

DIRECTIONS:

9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms:

(i) Claim of the petitioner for regularization as Shastri from the date of completion of years continuous service stands granted by the State Authorities in terms of the office order dated 21.09.2023 w.e.f. 04.09.2010 and the prayer has become infructuous;

(ii) Condition of notional benefits, as contained in the regularization order dated 21.09.2023 is quashed and set aside;

(iii) Denial of pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period from 04.09.2010 till 21.09.2023 and her joining thereto, is quashed and set- aside;

(iv) State Authorities are directed to grant all the consequential benefits, including pay and allowances-salary alongwith entire arrear, upon grant of regularization on 21.09.2023 w.e.f. 04.09.2010 and resultant joining;

(v) Benefits as in directions no (iv) supra be released to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of downloaded/certified copy of this judgment; and

(vi) Parties to bear respective cost(s).

REPORTABLE

In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge December 30, 2025 (vt/Bhardwaj)