IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 11461 of 2025
Decided on 25th February 2026
.
Dr. Sarishti Katwal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
...Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate
General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Rejoinder to the petition not filed. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that no rejoinder is intended to be
filed.
2. Heard.
3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
i) "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, quashing and setting aside the rejection order
dated 17.06.2025 (Annexufre P-6) whereby, the
petitioner's representation seeking NPA was
arbitrarily declined on unjust and unsustainable
grounds.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction
directing the respondents to grant the benefit of
Non-Practice Allowance (NPA) to the petitioner in
accordance with her appointment order dated
29.09.2022, treating her at par with her similarly
.
situated counterparts who were appointed under the
same selection process and are being paid NPA."
4. The factual matrix involved in this case is in a very
narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary
Officer on contract basis upon the recommendation of the
of
Departmental Selection Committee constituted for batch-wise
recruitment vide notification dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-1).
rt
The appointment of Veterinary Officers was done on contract
basis till further orders or renewal of contract after completion
of one year whichever was earlier, on fixed emoluments of
equal to 60% of first cell of level-18 (Rs.56,100-1,77,500) of the
Pay Matrix i.e. (Rs.33,660/- + 20% NPA) per month, subject to
verification of Character and Antecedents as per H.P. Financial
Rules. The name of the petitioner is at serial No.23 in the said
notification. As the petitioner was undergoing a Ph.D.
programme, she sought an extension from the employer as far
as the date of joining is concerned, which was duly granted to
her and she joined her duties as a Veterinary Officer at
Veterinary Hospital, Sayanj Bagra, District Mandi, H.P., on
05.07.2023. The joining of the petitioner was within the
extended time granted to her by the employer to join the post.
.
5. After the issuance of notification dated 29.09.2022
and before the petitioner actually joined as a Veterinary Officer
at Veterinary Hospital, Sayanj Bagra on 05.07.2023, the
Finance Department of the respondent-State issued a
of
notification dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) which reads as
under:- rt
"No.Fin-(C)B(7)-3/2021-1 Dated Shimla-2, 24th May, 2023.
NOTIFICATION
In partial modification of the department's
notifications Nos. Fin-(C)B(7)-3/2021 dated 3rd January,
2022 and No.Fin-(C)B(7)-3/2021-I dated 2nd March,
2022, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to
order that the Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) will not
be admissible for all Doctors recruited henceforth in
Health & Family Welfare, Medical Education, Dental,
Ayush and Animal Husbandry Departments of the State
Government."
6. In light of this notification after the petitioner joined
her duties, she has not been paid the Non-Practicing Allowance
and, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this
Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
denial of the Non-Practicing Allowance is not sustainable in the
eyes of law for the reason that notification dated 24.05.2023
.
could not have been applied by the Department retrospectively
in the case of the petitioner as the appointment of the petitioner
was before the issuance of notification dated 24.05.2023.
Learned counsel submitted that simply because the petitioner
of
joined after the issuance of notification dated 24.05.2023, the
same did not render the petitioner ineligible to receive Non-
rt
Practicing Allowance for the reason that the terms and
conditions of her appointment were never altered and she was
allowed to join her post on the strength of notification Annexure
P-1 itself. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the
denial of the Non-Practicing Allowance to the petitioner in the
facts of the case was not sustainable in the eyes of law and he
prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent-Authorities
to pay to the petitioner Non-Practicing Allowance to which she
is entitled to as per her appointment letter (Annexure P-1) as
from the date of her joining the post of Veterinary Officer.
8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate
General drew the attention of the Court to the reply of the
respondent-State and submitted that the prayer of the petitioner
.
for grant of Non-Practicing Allowance has been rejected in
terms of Annexure R-1 for the reason that as on the date when
the petitioner joined her service, notification dated 24.05.2023
was in force and in terms of this notification, she was not
of
entitled for Non-Practicing Allowance. Learned Deputy
Advocate General submitted that if the petitioner had joined her
rt
post before issuance of the notification dated 24.05.2023, then,
it would have been a different case, but, because, she did not
join her post before 24.05.2023, therefore, the cannot take
advantage of the benevolent act of the State, which allowed her
extension so as to complete her Ph.D. Learned Deputy
Advocate General also argued that terms governing NPA had
changed as on the day when the petitioner joined the post of
Veterinary Officer, obviously, she would be governed by the
new terms and conditions. Therefore, he argued that there is no
perversity in the act of the respondent-Department in denying
the Non-Practicing Allowance to the petitioner.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as
also learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully
gone through the petition as well as the reply filed thereto and
.
documents appended therewith.
10. The facts as have been narrated by me
hereinabove are not in dispute. It is a matter of record that the
petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary Officer vide notification
of
dated 29.09.2022 on a fixed salary of Rs.33,660/-+20% NPA. It
is also a matter of record that the petitioner did not join
rt
immediately on the issuance of notification dated 29.09.2022
and she joined as a Veterinary Officer on 05.07.2023. It is also
a matter of record that before the petitioner had joined as a
Veterinary Officer, a notification stood issued by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh 24.05.2023, in terms
whereof, Non-Practicing Allowance was not admissible to
Doctors, who were recruited thereafter.
11. A perusal of notification dated 24.05.2023
demonstrates that the Non-Practicing Allowance was withdrawn
by the State prospectively in the sense that it was mentioned in
this notification that the Non-Practicing Allowance will not be
admissible to Doctors recruited thereafter in Health and Family
Welfare, Medical Education, Dental, Ayush and Animal
Husbandry Departments of the State Government.
.
12. In the present case, it is not as if the petitioner was
recruited as a Veterinary Officer after 24.05.2023. She was
recruited against the said post vide notification dated
29.09.2022. This Court again reiterates that notification dated
of
24.05.2023 did not abolish the Non-Practicing Allowance, which
was being given to Officers including Veterinary Officers as on
rt
24.05.2023. This notification only made the Non-Practicing
Allowance not admissible, inter alia, to Veterinary Officers
recruited after 24.05.2023.
13. Now, as far as the issue of the petitioner having
joined the post on 05.07.2023 i.e., after 24.05.2023 is
concerned, fact of the matter remains that the Department
allowed her extension permitting her to join as a Veterinary
Officer on 05.07.2023 on the strength of her appointment
letter/notification dated 29.09.2022. It is not the case of the
Department that any further notification was issued with regard
to the appointment of the petitioner, in which, the terms and
conditions of appointment, as were contained in notification
dated 29.09.2022, were altered. It is also not the case of the
State that no extension, as was prayed by the petitioner to join
.
the post was granted to the petitioner by the Department.
14. Therefore, once the respondent-Department itself
acquiesced to the request of the petitioner and allowed her to
join the post on a later date, but, on the same terms and
of
conditions, on which she was appointed vide notification dated
29.09.2022, obviously, Non-Practicing Allowance cannot be
rt
denied to her on the strength of a subsequent notification dated
24.05.2023.
15. This Court is not making any observation with
regard to the validity of notification dated 24.05.2023, because,
that is not the subject matter of dispute before this Court. All
that this Court is observing is that as far as notification dated
24.05.2023 is concerned, terms of the language of the same
are prospective in nature and as the appointment of the
petitioner was before notification dated 24.05.2023 was issued,
she could not have been denied Non-Practicing Allowance by
taking advantage of notification dated 24.05.2023.
16. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this
writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondent-Department
denying the Non-Practicing Allowance to the petitioner as is
.
payable to her in terms of Annexure P-1 is held to be bad. The
rejection of the representation of the petitioner in this regard is
also held to be bad and the respondents are directed to pay the
petitioner the Non-Practicing Allowance, to which she is
of
entitled, in terms of notification date 29.09.2022. The Non-
Practicing Allowance from the month of April, 2026 onwards be
rt
paid to her regularly. As far as the arrears are concerned, the
same be paid to her within a period of three months from today,
failing which, the same shall entail simple interest @6% as from
the date the judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
February 25, 2026
(Vinod)
