IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Narender Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 1003 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Promotion and pay scale - Petitioner sought to quash decisions denying promotion and pay scale increase based on Cabinet decisions - Court found that the Cabinet's decision to retract earlier promotions was valid as it was not based on any Recruitment & Promotion Rules - Petitioner had received three promotions in eight years, and no enforceable right existed for further promotion - Court ruled that discretionary relief granted by the Cabinet could be withdrawn. (Paras 12, 15, 21, 23)
(B) Administrative Law - Discretionary powers of the Cabinet - The Cabinet has the authority to review and retract its decisions, especially when not based on established rules or regulations. (Paras 15, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, initially appointed in 1988, sought promotion to Additional Registrar after being promoted to Joint Registrar based on a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet later retracted this decision, citing the absence of Recruitment & Promotion Rules and the petitioner's prior promotions.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, affirming the Cabinet's right to retract its earlier decision and noting the lack of enforceable rights for the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the Cabinet could retract its earlier decision regarding the petitioner's promotion and pay scale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Cabinet's decision was valid as it was not bound by previous discretionary decisions, especially in the absence of formal rules governing promotions.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep Sharma, J.)
By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:
“(i)That impugned Annexure P-10 dated 31st July 2019 as also N-474 of Annexure P-11 & Annexure P-13, dated 2nd January, 2020 may very kindly be quashed and set aside;
(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may very kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to implement the decision taken by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 10th April, 2017 in its entirety by extending all benefits which may accrue on account of such decision, in the interest of law and justice.
(iii) That the respondents, particularly respondent No.1, may very kindly be directed to grant grade pay Rs.7800/- to the petitioner on and w.e.f. 7th October, 2017, when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Registrar, and to pay arrears alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”
2. For having bird’s eye view, the facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner, who was initially appointed as Steno Typist/Jr. Scale Stenographer in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Department in the Year 1988, was appointed as Sr. Scale Stenographer in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla in the month of August 1995. In month of February 2008, petitioner was promoted as Personal Assistant and thereafter, in December 2011, he was promoted as Private Secretary and was posted in Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the Commission”).
3. On 1.10.2015, petitioner being fully eligible and qualified came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar on the establishment of Commission in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+5400/- Grade Pay. For completion of facts, it is pertinent to take note that one Sh. Sita Ram Dhiman, the then Assistant Registrar filed Writ petition before this court, which subsequently came to be transferred to erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal, seeking revision of pay scale of the post of Assistant Registrar to bring it at par with post of Assistant Registrar on the establishment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Erstwhile Tribunal vide order dated 3.8.2017 passed in TA No. 6096 of 2015, directed the competent authority to grant pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 +Rs.800/- as special allowance to Sh. Sita Ram Dhiman from due date by equating the post of Assistant Registrar at par with the coordinate post of Assistant Registrar on the establishment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-1). Petitioner herein also filed OA No. 5488 of 2018 before the erstwhile Tribunal. In the afore proceedings erstwhile Tribunal directed the respondents to extend similar benefits to the present petitioner as well as similarly situate persons granting them pay scale as is applicable to the post of Assistant Registrar in the High Court.
4. During aforesaid period, draft Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-2) were prepared by the respondent-Commission for the post of Registrar on the establishment of the Commission, which though were accepted by respondent No.2, but Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 4.3.2016 did not approve the same and ordered that post of Registrar be encadred in HAS (Annexure P-3).
5. On 10.4.2017, draft rules were submitted before the Council of Ministers for third time. In the proposal, three points were placed for consideration before the Council of Ministers, out of which, points No. (i) and (ii) were rejected while approval was given to point No.(iii), whereby Registrar was to be retained in HAS Cadre and proposal given in para 6 was to be further processed. Para 6 of memorandum for the consideration of Council of Ministers, reads as under:
“6. While CMM has already decided that Registrar will be from HAS only, following is proposed:
(i) Assistant Registrar may be promoted as Joint Registrar after service of two (02) years and Additional Registrar after service of four (04) years (b
The Cabinet has the authority to retract discretionary promotions when not based on formal Recruitment & Promotion Rules, and no enforceable right exists for further promotion.
The discretionary power to relax rules should be exercised sparingly to meet exceptional situations, and the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to grant financial benefits for dischargin....
Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Promotion - Benefits of - A person, who performs duties of higher office, must get salary of same post. He cannot waive of his fundamental/legal right to get higher ....
No vested right to promotion exists if the position was downgraded before approval, despite eligibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and seniority cannot be granted retrospectively when an employee was not born....
Quashing of punishment has retrospective effect; employee gets promotion and financial benefits from juniors' promotion dates when delay due to employer's fault; 'no work no pay' inapplicable; incomp....
The court upheld the promotion process as fair, emphasizing merit-cum-seniority criteria and the advisory committee's objective assessment, ruling that the appellate authority's decision did not requ....
Promotion decisions in administrative matters can prioritize merit over seniority, and procedural irregularities do not invalidate the decision if the assessment is objective.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to promotion and directed the consideration of the petitioner's seniority and promotion claims after disciplinary proceedings concluded.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.