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. 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 notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, states that since the petitioner was awarded National Award in 2016, he is entitled to be extended benefit in terms of afore notifications and his rightful claim cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that afore notifications stand superseded. 6. While making this Court peruse notification dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure R-1), it came to be pleaded by the respondents that same is prospective. If it is so, teachers, who had become eligible for extension and additional increment in terms of previous notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, cannot be denied benefit of extension in service. 6. While making this Court peruse notification dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure R-1), it came to be pleaded by the respondents that same is prospective. If it is so, teachers, who had become eligible for extension and additional increment in terms of previous notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, cannot be denied benefit of extension in service. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that in terms of notification dated 24.09.2015, petitioner has already been granted the benefit of an additional increment and as such, respondents are otherwise estopped from applying the afore notification in the case of the petitioner. 7. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of the respondents inasmuch as denial of extension in service in the case of petitioner is concerned, vehemently argued that right, if any, to extension accrued in favour of the petitioner on 30.04.2024, by which time the notification dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure R-1) had come in operation, wherein there is no provision, if any, for extension in service, but recipients of National/ State Awardee can only be re-employed and that too on fixed emoluments. He further submitted that otherwise also, this Court has very limited scope to interfere on account of the fact that decision to grant extension or re-employment is a policy decision, which the Government is entitled to review at any point of time taking note of various factors including financial health of the State. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that precise question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand “whether petitioner herein is entitled to the benefit of extension in service in terms of notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 (Annexures P-2 & P-3), which admittedly stand superseded with the issuance of notification dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure R-2). It is not in dispute that petitioner is a National Award recipient and when such award was conferred upon him, there was a scheme/policy decision taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh to extend certain benefits to recipients of National and State Awards. To give effect to afore policy decision, Government issued two notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 (Annexures P-2 and 3). Careful perusal of notification dated 24.09.2015 clearly reveals that recipients of National Award were to be given two years extension and one additional increment. To give effect to afore policy decision, Government issued two notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 (Annexures P-2 and 3). Careful perusal of notification dated 24.09.2015 clearly reveals that recipients of National Award were to be given two years extension and one additional increment. Afore notification was further modified on 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-3), wherein it came to be clarified that teachers, who have received Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- respectively, with State or National Awards, respectively, shall have the option to get one year extension in service for receiving State Award and two years extension of service with one additional increment for receiving National Award, subject to the condition that cash award received by them shall be subsequently deducted from their salary in twelve equal installments. Since, in the case at hand, petitioner herein was not given any cash award, there was no question of any deduction of the same from his salary, but it is not in dispute that in terms of afore notification dated 24.09.2015, he was given benefit of one additional increment. Since, in year 2016, there was no occasion, if any, for the petitioner to rake up the issue with regard to extension of service, because at that time he was left with nine years service, coupled with the fact that in terms of policy dated 24.09.2015, he stood granted the benefit of an additional increment, petitioner had no occasion, if any, to lay challenge to subsequent notification dated 19.07.2023, whereby benefit of extension in service earlier agreed to be granted in terms of notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 was withdrawn. No doubt, careful perusal of notification dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure R-2) suggests that both the aforesaid notifications were withdrawn by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but with immediate effect, meaning thereby, persons, who stood granted benefits in terms of earlier notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, are entitled to get benefits in term of old notifications, as detailed hereinabove. No doubt, careful perusal of notification dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure R-2) suggests that both the aforesaid notifications were withdrawn by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but with immediate effect, meaning thereby, persons, who stood granted benefits in terms of earlier notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, are entitled to get benefits in term of old notifications, as detailed hereinabove. Since in the year 2016, petitioner, being recipient of National Award, had become eligible for extension in service, coupled with the fact that he was immediately granted the benefit of additional increment, rightful claim of the petitioner for extension in service in terms of afore notification cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of issuance of notification dated 19.07.2023, which has simply withdrawn earlier notification, but without there being any condition that benefits, if any, of the beneficiary granted pursuant to afore notification dated 24.09.2015 shall also stand withdrawn. Interestingly, in the case at hand, one benefit in terms of notification dated 24.09.2015 stands granted to the petitioner his being a recipient of National Award, but the other benefit, i.e. extension in service, is being denied on very flimsy grounds. Right to claim extension had accrued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2016 after his having received National Award, which otherwise cannot be taken away with the issuance of notification dated 19.07.2023, whereby notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 came to be withdrawn. Interestingly, in the case at hand, after issuance of notification dated 19.07.2023, another notification dated 06.02.2025 came to be issued which reads as under:- Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Elementary Education No. EDN-C-F(1)-1/2024-L Dated: Shimla-2, the 6, February, 2025 NOTIFICATION In supersession EDN-C-F(10)-7/2022 dated 12-09-2023. the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to of this department's notification issue the following guidelines for rewarding National/Staic Awardee Teachers No 1. National Awardee Teachers and State Awardee Teachers shall be granted extensions in service for two years and one year respectively with the prior approval of Minister-in-Charge 2. The National/State Awardee Teachers shall have to exercise this option six months prior to their retirement/superannuation date. 3. Upon receiving an extension in service, these teachers shall be liable to be posted anywhere within the state. 4. Awardee Teachers who do not opt for an extension in service will receive a one-time fixed cash reward of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- for National Awardee Teachers and State Awardee Teachers respectively. 3. Upon receiving an extension in service, these teachers shall be liable to be posted anywhere within the state. 4. Awardee Teachers who do not opt for an extension in service will receive a one-time fixed cash reward of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- for National Awardee Teachers and State Awardee Teachers respectively. The concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) is authorized to draw and disburse the cash reward in favor of awardee teachers during their last month of service. These guidelines shall be effective from the date of issuance of this notification. By Order Rakesh Kanwar Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh 6th February, 2025 9. Careful perusal of afore notification clearly reveals that respondent/State has again decided to give extension in service to the recipients of National/ State Award. Though afore notification has been made effective from the date of its issuance, but since it is not in dispute that prior to issuance of afore notification, two notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 already stood issued at the behest of respondents, thereby extending similar benefits, respondent/State is estopped from claiming that benefits, if any, flowing from notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 are not available on account of notification dated 19.07.2023, whereby afore notifications came to be withdrawn. No doubt, vide notification dated 19.07.2023, afore notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 were withdrawn, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that with the issuance of notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015, a right has accrued in favour of the petitioner, which cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of notification dated 19.07.2023, which otherwise nowhere suggests that it shall have retrospective effect. 10. Though at this stage, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that right to extension in service became available to the petitioner at the time of his retirement on 30.04.2024, but such plea of Mr. Verma deserves outright rejection. No doubt, petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2024, but he had become eligible to seek extension in service after his superannuation in the year 2016, when he was awarded the National Award. If the afore plea taken by the respondents-State is accepted, very purpose and object of issuing notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 would stand defeated. Verma deserves outright rejection. No doubt, petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2024, but he had become eligible to seek extension in service after his superannuation in the year 2016, when he was awarded the National Award. If the afore plea taken by the respondents-State is accepted, very purpose and object of issuing notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 would stand defeated. Vide afore notification, respondents at one point of time, with a view to encourage the meritorious teachers, decided to extend certain benefits including extension in service, but before such benefits, if any, could be extended to them, respondents withdrew the notification by issuing fresh notification dated 19.07.2023, which is prospective in nature. No doubt, respondents took a policy decision to extend certain benefits including extension in service to its meritorious teachers and it has also right to withdraw such policy decision, but once during subsistence of such policy decision, right to extension in service stood accrued to the petitioner, respondents cannot be permitted to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner on the ground of policy decision. Otherwise also, afore ground of policy decision taken by the respondents falls to the ground in view of latest notification dated 06.02.2025 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, thereby again extending benefit of extension in service to the recipients of National/State Award. 11. There is another angle to the matter. A Notification is issued in 2015, thereby entitling national /state awardees for extension in service including one additional increment, in case of national awardees. Another Notification is issued in 2023, thereby rescinding earlier decision, meaning thereby those who had received the entire benefits in terms of 2015 Notification(s), continued with the same and those who received such awards after 2023, were deprived of such benefit. Now in 2025, third Notification is issued thereby restoring the scheme floated in 2015, meaning thereby that the national/state awardees after 2025, would get the benefit of extension in service (not reemployment on fixed emoluments). Thus, due to decisions taken by the respondents on three occasions, two classes of national/state awardees have been created viz. those who got the benefit and those, who were denied such benefit. This classification is bereft of any logic or object. It has created a discrimination and petitioner, who otherwise has received part benefit i.e. additional increment, has been denied benefit of extension. those who got the benefit and those, who were denied such benefit. This classification is bereft of any logic or object. It has created a discrimination and petitioner, who otherwise has received part benefit i.e. additional increment, has been denied benefit of extension. Had the petitioner superannuated between 2015 to 2023, he would have got the benefit of extension, but unfortunately, he retired during 2023-2025, during which the decision to grant extension was not in operation. Though, it is within the domain of the State to float, cancel or restore its policy decisions, but so far its application is concerned, same should be rational. It seems that the respondents have not foreseen the situations arising due to their policy decisions. There may be two persons, who got such award after 2015 and one may be retired before 2023, when decision to grant benefit of extension was withdrawn and another might have not retired by that time, as is the case of petitioner, thus, two persons belonging to one class, get different treatments. 12. There is another interesting aspect of the matter i.e. whether a person, who received national/State award during intervening period of 2023 and 2025, when decision to grant extension in service was not in operation, if retires after 2025, whether he would be governed by policy decision of 2023 or 2025. It would be worth pondering here that whether date of receipt of national/state award is the key factor or the date of retirement? Though, all the policy decisions taken by the respondents through the years 2015-2025 are silent on this aspect, but this court can take judicial notice of the fact, it should be the date of receipt of such award and thus, the petitioner who received award during the currency of decisions taken in 2015, is definitely entitled to be extended the remainder of the benefit in terms of policy decision taken in 2015. Otherwise also, action of the respondents in denying benefit of extension in service to the petitioner is discriminatory in nature, as it creates a divide amongst National/State Awardees, on the basis of their dates of retirements, which discrimination is without any logic or rationale. Otherwise also, action of the respondents in denying benefit of extension in service to the petitioner is discriminatory in nature, as it creates a divide amongst National/State Awardees, on the basis of their dates of retirements, which discrimination is without any logic or rationale. Moreover, respondents, in any eventuality have decided to restore the benefit of extension to National /State Awardees and thus, there should not be any hurdle for them to extend such benefit to the petitioner, who had become entitled to such benefit in 2015, during currency of decisions taken in 2015 and had received part benefit viz. additional increment. 13. Consequently, in view of above detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merits in the present petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant benefit of extension in service to the petitioner being his National Awardee in terms of notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant order shall be done, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.