IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4029 of 2021 Reserved on: September 11, 2025 Decided on: September 22, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Subhash Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.

B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

h Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

____________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs:

“i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the order of rejection of the representations of the petitioners vide Annexures P-15 and P-16 (dated 18.06.2021) and also order of promotion of respondent No.4 to the post of divisional Manager (Non Technical) vide Annexure P-17 dated 19.06.2021 issued by respondent No.3;

ii) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the order or promotion of respondent No.4 to the post of Deputy Divisional Manager (Legal) vide Annexure P-11 dated 03.05.2017 and also to include his category from the post of Deputy Divisional Manager (Legal & Labour) to the Deputy Divisional Manager (N on Technical) after directing respondent No.3 to place on record the final seniority list of the post of Deputy Divisional Manager (Non Technical);

iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents No. 1 to 3 rto promote the petitioners to the post of Divisional manager (Non Technical) with all consequential benefits and further the petitioners moay be assigned seniority above respondent No.4 (sic: respondent No.3) and further the arrears may kindly be ordered to be paid to the petitioners alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date same fell due till i s realization;

iv) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing grespondents No.1 to 3 to make recovery of the salary which respondent No.4 has drawn on the post of Deputy Divisional Manager (Legal & Labour) with effect from 03.05.2017, especially when there was no such post existing under the R&P Rules and thereafter on the post of Divisional Manager (Non Technical) with effect from 19.06.2021 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date same fell due till is realization.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record and germane for the adjudication of the controversy at hand are that there are posts of Divisional Manager in the respondent Corporation, below these posts are the posts of Deputy Divisional Managers, then Regional Manager and other posts. If a hierarchical chart is drawn, it would be as under:

3. Close scrutiny of pleadings as well as documents adduced on record revCeals that there is a cadre of Legal Assistant/Law Officer in the respondent Corporation. Post of Law Officer was up-graded to that of R egional Manager (Legal and Labour) in 1996, vide 8^th Amendment of gR&P Rules, 1996 vide order dated 15.2.2011. Respondent No. 4 is a iperson, who was initially appointed as Legal Assistant in the respondent-Corporation, as is evident from order dated 5.7.1997 but later on, how he came to be posted as Law Officer is not clear from the pleadings. Re