State Cannot Deny Increment & Benefits To Chief Justice's Staff Once CJ Grants Extension Of Service Under Article 229: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once the Chief Justice grants extension of service to his Principal Private Secretary with full consequential benefits under Article 229 of the Constitution, the administrative establishment does not have any right to seek further clarification from the State.

Further, the Court remarked that there is a clear distinction between extension in service and re-employment. It reiterated that extension is a continuation of regular service, during which the employee remains a member of the cadre, and the extended period counts toward qualifying service, entitling the incumbent to full pay, allowances, and increments.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj stated that: “In our considered opinion, once the order of re-extension had been specifically passed, the query was not required to be made, which has led to the unsavoury situation”.

Background:

The retirement of Petitioner Prem Chand Verma, Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, was due in August, 2022, but the then Chief Justice granted him one-year extension under Article 229 of the Constitution.

The extension order clearly stated that he will be entitled to the same scale, special pay, grade pay, and all consequential benefits.

However, despite the order of the Chief Justice, the state contended that, according to the instructions of the Finance Department, no increment can be granted during extension.

The Court observed that the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Handbook on Personnel Matters, clearly distinguishes between extension and re-employment, and only grants increments during extension.

Further, the Court remarked that when an extension is granted under Article 229, the Chief Justice's order must be given full effect and the Establishment should not have raised queries contrary to the order granting “all consequential benefits.”

Also, the Court held that the instructions of the Handbook on Personnel Matters and the statutory rules are binding.

Thus, the High Court allowed the petition and directed payment of the increment and consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Case Name: Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another

Case No.: CWP No. 15499 of 2024

Date of Decision: 18.11.2025

For the Petitioner: Petitioner in person

For the Respondent: Mr. Arash Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

Mr.Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order