The right to extension in service for National Award recipients cannot be negated by subsequent policy changes if it was accrued under prior notifications.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-

“(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued quashing the communication dated 11.02.2024 & 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-6 (Colly)) whereby the case of the Petitioner for grant of 2 years of Extension and one additional increment.

(ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the petitioner two years of Extension in service w.e.f. 01.05.2024 to 30.04.2026 and the benefit of one additional increment from the date of receipt of National Award i.e. 5.09.2016 with all consequential arrear along with interest.”

2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that petitioner herein was initially appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) School cadre on tenure basis in the year 1989. However, subsequently petitioner was appointed through Public Service Commission on regular basis in the month of October, 1994 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Principal School cadre on 23.06.2011. Petitioner, being a highly skilled teacher with an impeccable service record, was awarded National Award on 05.09.2016 for his valuable services to the community as a teacher of outstanding merit. Vide notification dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-2), Government of Himachal Pradesh, with a view to recognize meritorious service rendered by teachers, decided to grant a two years extension in service with one additional increment to the teachers, who received National Level Award and one year extension in service to State Level Awardees. In terms of afore notification, petitioner herein, who was otherwise due to superannuate on 30.04.2024, was given benefit of one additional increment being a National Awardee, but since after his retirement, he was denied extension, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply under the signatures of Deputy Secretary (Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein facts as have been taken note hereinabove are not disputed, rather stand admitted.

4. It has been averred in the reply that after issuance of notification dated 24.09.2015, another notification dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) was issued, wherein it came to be notified that teachers, who have received Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-, respectively, in lieu of receiving State/National Award, respectively, will have the option to get one year extension in service for receiving State Award and two years extension in service with one increment for National Award, subject to the condition that cash award received by such teachers will be deducted from their salary in twelve equal installments. It has been further averred in the reply that both the afore notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 (Annexures P-2 & P-3) were subsequently withdrawn vide notification dated 30.07.2023 (Annexure R-2). Since notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, thereby granting certain benefits including benefit of extension in service stood withdrawn prior to the retirement of petitioner, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, to consider the claim of the petitioner for extension in service. It has been submitted in the reply that vide notification dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure R-1) National/State Awardee Teachers were given option to get themselves engaged on fixed emoluments after their retirement. As per reply filed by the respondents, though petitioner herein was offered engagement in terms of order dated 12.09.2023 on fixed emoluments of Rs.30,000/- per month, but he refused to accept the same.

5. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse no