Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja, JJ.
Vishal Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWP Nos.231 & 475 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Hand Book on Personal Matters, Government of H.P. - Chapter 22 - Re-employment of government employees - Petitioners challenged the re-employment of respondent No.4 as Director, Animal Husbandry, arguing it violated mandatory provisions of law. The court found that the re-employment process did not adhere to the established criteria and procedures, leading to the quashing of the re-employment notification. (Paras 4, 12, 24, 42)
(B) Administrative Law - Compliance with executive instructions - The court emphasized that executive instructions must be followed to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fair play. The failure to adhere to the prescribed procedures in granting re-employment was deemed illegal. (Paras 25, 41)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, one of whom had superannuated and the other still in service, contested the legality of the re-employment of respondent No.4, who was due to retire, arguing that it deprived them of promotion opportunities.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the re-employment was granted without following the mandatory procedures outlined in Chapter 22 of the Hand Book on Personal Matters, leading to its quashing.
Issues: The main issues were whether the re-employment of respondent No.4 adhered to the procedural requirements and whether the petitioners were denied their rightful promotion opportunities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the re-employment process violated the mandatory provisions of the Hand Book on Personal Matters, emphasizing that such decisions must be made in public interest and follow established procedures.
Result: The re-employment granted to respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these writ petitions, the same were taken uptogether for arguments and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners in both these cases have assailed the Notification dated 02.01.2025, whereby respondent No.4 has been granted re-employment to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry and have further prayed for a direction to the respondents to hold a meeting of the DPC for promotion of the petitioners to the post of Director.
3. The facts are not in dispute that petitioner Vishal Sharma in CWP No.231 of 2025 has superannuated on 31.01.2025 and fell in the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Director, in case the post would have been filled up in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Likewise, the other petitioner is still continuing in service and falls within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Director.
4. It is averred that impugned Notification dated 02.01.2025, whereby re-employment has been granted to respondent No.4 on the post of Director is contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is averred that respondent No.4 before granting the re-employment was necessarily obliged and duty bound to have followed the provisions contained in Chapter 22 of Hand Book on Personal matters, Government of H.P., which contains the provisions with respect to extension and re-employment and is mandatory as held by this Court in CWPIL No.201 of 2017.
5. The official respondents No.1 to 3 have filed their joint reply, wherein, it has been stated that the Department of Personnel is the cadre controlling department of the Director- Animal Husbandry and convenes the meeting of DPC for filling up the post of Director Animal Husbandry on the proposal furnished by respondent No.2 i.e. Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry.
6. Respondent No.2 in this case had forwarded a copy of representation of the Minister for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh received from the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s office regarding grant of extension in service/re- employment in favour of respondent No.4, who was due to retire on 31.12.2024.
7. In the representation, it was observed that respondent No.4 is very hardworking officer and well conversant with every activities of the Department. It was further observed that during his tenure as Director, he handled the things perfectly and efficiently and, therefore, keeping in view the work experience, the Minister concerned recommended his case for extension/re-employment in favour of respondent No.4 atleast for one year in the larger public interest.
8. The competent authority, after taking into consideration the service experience of respondent No.4 and recommendation of the Minister, approved re-employment in his favour for a period of six months on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry in the larger public interest. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was re-employed to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry vide Notification dated 02.01.2025.
9. Respondent No.2 has also filed its reply, wherein, identical averments as those made by respondents No.1 and 3 with regard to processing and moving the case of respondent No.4 for extension of service and its approval have been made.
10. As regards respondent No.4, he has filed his separate reply to justify that he has an outstanding career, therefore, has rightly been granted re-employment.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case carefully.
12. Chapter 22 of Handbook on Personal Matters, deals with extension/re-employment and some of the provisions relevant at this stage are extracted below:-
Chapter 22
EXTENSION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT
22.1 Superannuation
Superannuation is retirement from the service on attainment of specific age. The competent authority (Central or State govt.) decides on the age limit for different posts. F.R. 56 contains
Re-employment of government employees must adhere to established procedures and criteria to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fair play.
Statutory rules govern public employment appointments, and deviations without proper procedure or justification are impermissible, ensuring service integrity and fair opportunity for aspirants.
Extension in service beyond superannuation under Article 229 entitles employee to annual increment per handbook distinguishing it from re-employment, prevailing over instructions denying pay increase....
The court held that the government may withdraw re-employment provisions for retired teachers according to policy changes, and that no vested rights were violated as re-employment was contingent upon....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a policy decision to recall a previous decision, taken in the larger public interest, is valid and not unreasonable. The principle of legitima....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
