SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 269

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
  

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

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.

Headnote:

(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enforceable right existed for further promotion - Court ruled that discretionary relief granted by the Cabinet could be withdrawn.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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top