Daleep Kumar Thakur v. State of H.P & Anr.

as supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:- “Government of Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department D.N.C.C. (1-7)-3/ 2007 Volume-III Dated Shimla-2 24.9.2015 Notification In supersession of all previous notifications/orders, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh grants two years extension in service with one additional increment to teachers who have received national level awards and one year extension of service to teachers who have received state level awards. This decision will come into effect from the date of issue of the notification. By order Additional Chief Secretary (Education) Government of Himachal Pradesh” The above notification was issued in supercession of all previous notifications/orders/decision on the subject. As per above notification, Hon’ble Governor of Himachal Pradesh had approved extension in service by two years to the National Awardee teachers 3 ( 2025:HHC:38861 ) alongwith one additional increment. The State Awardee teachers were entitled to one year extension in service. 2(iii) Subsequently another notification was issued on

30.11.2015 clarifying that to get extension in service the eligible teachers will have the option to deposit the cash awards. Incidentally, petitioner deposited cash award which he had received alongwith the National Award, with the respondents. Petitioner was due to superannuate on 31.05.2023. He represented seeking extension of two years in service. Staking claim upon the applicability of notification dated 24.09.2015, petitioner has preferred this writ petition for grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction may kindly be issued to directing the respondents to grant the petitioner two years extension in service and one additional increment in terms of notification dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-3).” 2(iv) The respondents- Education Department in its reply has not denied that petitioner had been given National Award. According to the respondents, the said National Award conferred upon the petitioner i.e. IGNSS Award for the period 2011-12 is not covered under the notification dated 24.09.2015. Respondents in their reply have made an endevour to trace history of notifications/scheme for conferring awards to teachers in the State Education Department from the year 2010 onwards. It has been highlighted that the State had introduced the scheme of awards to the teachers on 03.03.2010 which has been further 4 ( 2025:HHC:38861 ) modified from time to time. The reply states that as per Clause 3 of the 2010 Scheme, selection of teachers for grant of National Awards is made by a State Level Committee. The said Committee nominates the names of teachers as per the number prescribed by Union Government for National Award. During hearing of this case on

17.11.2025, learned Additional Advocate General had placed on record copy of said scheme dated 03.03.2010. Respondents have also pleaded that under the said scheme, the award money was enhanced to 60,000/- & 40,000/- for National Awardee and State ₹50,000/- and a trophy. ₹50,000/- and a trophy. Awardee teachers, respectively. It is the stand of the respondents that on 04.09.2015, the Cabinet had decided to grant two years extension in service alongwith one additional increment to National Awardee teachers and one year extension to State Awardee teachers but this scheme is for the benefit of only those teachers who have been conferred National Award as per provisions of 2010 scheme. The National award received by the petitioner is different from the one conceptualized under notification dated 24.09.2015. 2(v) The gist of stand of respondents is that National award for which notification was issued on 24.09.2015 is different from the National Award received by the petitioner. The notification dated

24.09.2015 is applicable to the National Award received by the teachers for their excellence in field of education whereas the National Award received by the petitioner is in context of National Service Scheme. The notification dated 24.09.2015 governs such 5 ( 2025:HHC:38861 ) National Award which has been issued pursuant to the scheme dated 03.03.2010. In fact respondents have also outlined by way of instructions dated 06.11.2025 following differences between the National Teachers Award which according to them is covered by notification dated 24.09.2015 and the IGNSS Award received by the petitioner:- Features National Teachers Award Indira Gandhi National Service Scheme Award Primary Focus Recognizes excellence, commitment, and innovation in teaching and improving the quality of education. Recognizes outstanding voluntary contributions to the community and social service activities. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. Regular teachers and heads of primary, middle, secondary, and higher secondary schools/institutions. NSS NSS Volunteers, Programme Officers, NSS Units, and University/+2 Councils Administe Ministry Target Awardees Eligibility Criteria Minimum years of teaching experience (e.g., 10 years for school teachers), innovative pedagogy, improved learning community outcomes, engagement related to the school, etc. Completion of a minimum of 240 hours of community service consecutive years, in special partifipation camps/national programs, and work on social issues like health, literacy, environment, etc. Presented annually on date determined by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (often around National Youth Day or Gandhi Jayanti). NSS To promote develop activities, personality and character of student youth through community service, and foster a sense of social responsibility. Award Ceremony Date Presented annually on September 5th, the birthday of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Teacher’s Day). Objective To publicly recognize teachers and meritorious inspire others in the field of education

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 6 ( 2025:HHC:38861 )

4. The case revolves around a notification dated

24.09.2015 [extracted in para 2(ii)]. The notification supercedes all previous notifications/orders on the subject. As per the fresh notification issued on 24.09.2015, National Awardee Teachers are entitled to two years extension in service alongwith one additional increment whereas State Awardees are entitled to one year extension in service. The notification does not differentiate between the nature of National Award for conferring the benefits flowing from it. The notification does not dissects the National Awards issued to the teachers be it in the field of education or NSS for restricting the benefits emanating from the notification. All that is required under the notification for a teacher to be eligible for two years service extension with one additional increment is conferment of a National Award. Admittedly, the petitioner is recipient of a National Award. The award received by petitioner is not from any private agency but the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India. The award has been given to him by the Hon’ble President of India. National Awards for excellence in education from Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Government of India are also conferred by the Hon’ble President of India. Discrimination being created by the respondents between recipients of National Award given to teachers for education and the National Award given to teachers for their contribution to community and social service activities i.e. NSS is artificial, unwarranted and not supported by the notification. Respondents have 7 ( 2025:HHC:38861 ) acknowledged the fact that National Award in field of education recognizes pedagogical and educational excellence while Indira Gandhi NSS National Award recognizes dedication to selfless community service and social work by young volunteers and their leaders/ institutions under the NSS. The National Service Scheme is also part of School curriculum. It is for this reason that respondents had themselves deputed the petitioner as Programme Co-ordinator, NSS. During hearing of the case, learned Additional Advocate General fairly acknowledged the fact that notification dated

24.09.2015 had superceded all previous notifications and orders on the subject including 2010 scheme for conferring awards to teachers. As a consequence, the only available notification governing the field placed on record is the one issued on 24.09.2015. Respondents have also comprehended the notification dated 24.09.2015 in that manner i.e. all previous schemes for conferment of awards to school teachers stood superceded. This would also be evident from notification dated 19.07.2024 placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General during hearing of the case. In terms of said notification, the respondents-State has notified a fresh scheme titled Himachal Pradesh State Award for School Teachers Scheme, 2024. Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions fairly submitted that no scheme has been framed by the respondents- State till date for H.P. National Award for school teachers. Viewing from any angle, the only logical conclusion that can be deduced is 8 ( 2025:HHC:38861 ) that in the instant case, benefits of National Award would be governed by notification dated 24.09.2015 & no other notification and in terms of said notification, the National Awardee teachers are entitled to two years service extension with one additional increment. The petitioner admittedly being recipient of a National Award during the year 2011-12, was entitled to two years extension in service with one additional increment. The petitioner, however has by now attained the age of 60 years. He was denied benefit of two years of extended service permissible to him as per notification dated

24.09.2015. In Union of India and Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others2 the employer had kept away the employee from promotional post by wrongly keeping his case for promotion in sealed cover. The employee was held entitled to actual benefits. Hon’ble Apex Court held that principle of ‘no work no pay’ has no applicability where employee though willing is not allowed to do work without his fault. In State of Kerala and Others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai3 holds that grant of monetary benefits with retrospective promotion depends upon consideration of various facets. When administration denies legitimate dues, the employee should be given full monetary benefits subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. Principle of ‘no work no pay’ cannot