Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Pardeep Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Another – Respondents
CWPOA No.1647 of 2020
Decided On : 30-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Promotion
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appointments or promotions contrary to statutory rules void and cannot be regularized; perpetuating illegality not permissible. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis from 01.01.1987, regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1997. Claimed promotion to Pump Operator w.e.f. 15.03.2012 when junior promoted, alleging non-consideration despite eligibility and later promotions of 26 others on 15.02.2017. Respondents denied eligibility as petitioner not in feeder category per rules requiring specific experience; promotions only from trained eligible Helpers/Pump Attendants.
Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; no direction for promotion or consequential benefits; parties to bear respective costs.
Issues: Whether Beldar eligible for promotion to Pump Operator absent feeder category status; validity of non-sponsorship for training claim raised belatedly in rejoinder; right to promotion dehors rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Promotion strictly governed by recruitment rules specifying feeder categories and qualifications; non-feeder employee lacks locus for promotion claim; delay and new pleas bar relief; cannot direct promotion ignoring statutory mandate to avoid illegality.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner:Mr Prantap Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. beldar ineligible as non-feeder category under rule 11. (Para 5) |
| 2. dehors-rules promotion void, perpetuates illegality. (Para 7) |
| 3. training non-sponsorship plea rejected due delay, no evidence. (Para 8) |
| 4. petition dismissed enforcing statutory recruitment rules. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Petitioner, Pardeep Kumar had filed an Original Application, OA No 893 of 2017 before Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon its abolition, the matter upon transfer, has come up before this Court as CWPOA No 1647 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s):
“(i). The respondent department may kindly be directed to promote the applicant as Pump Operator with effect from 15.03.2012, the date when said Sh. Lekh Raj was promoted as Pump Operator, with all consequential benefits.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as set-up by Learned Counsel is that petitioner was engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 01.01.1987 and his services were regularized as Beldar on 01.01.1997 [Annexure A-1]. It is the case of petitioner that one Shri Lekh Raj was promoted as Pump Operator by the State Authorities on 15.03.2012 [Annexure A-2], whereas, the petitioner despite being eligible for promotion to post of Pump Operator was neither considered nor promoted as a Pump Operator by the State Authorities. It is further averred that 26 other incumbents have been promoted as Pump Operators on 15.02.2017 [Annexure A-3], by State Authorities but despite eligibility and entitlement, petitioner was neither considered nor promoted as Pump Operator by the State Authorities.
In this backdrop, the petitioner has filed instant petition raising a claim for directing the State Authorities to promote the petitioner as Pump Operator w.e.f. 15.03.2012, the date from which Shri Lekh Raj i.e. private respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 30.03.2017, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 30.07.2018 of Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle, Una.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit admits that the petitioner is working as Beldar on regular basis w.e.f. 01.01.1997 in Respondent-Department. Reply-Affidavit indicates that promotion to post of Pump Operator are governed by RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES dated 31.08.1996[Annexure R-I] from amongst the Helpers/Pump Attendants who possess 8 years of regular work charge service including 5 years experience of working with Pump Motors and Electrical Accessories.
3(ii). Reply-Affidavit indicates that so far as incumbents who were promoted as Pump Operators are concerned, they had undergone the training as Pump Operator-Helper and pursuant to the said training they were promoted to the said post. It is averred that Annexure A-4 is not a Seniority List. It is averred that post of Pump Operator is Class-III Circle Level post, to be filled from feeder categories who are eligible as per statutory Rules Annexure R-I and since the petitioner being a Beldars, does not falls in the feeder category, therefore, he and is not eligible. It is averred that the petitioner cannot have any grievance if eligible feeder category employees were promoted to the posts of Pump Operator by the respondents. In this backdrop, a prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition.
REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
4. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that respondents have adopted a pick and choose method by not sponsoring petitioner for training which was one of the pre-requisites so as to enable him to gain experience and eligibility for promotion. In this backdrop, petitioner has denied the averments contained in reply and reiterated his claim for promotion as Pump Operator from due date.
5. Heard, Mr. Prantap Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for Respondents and have gone through the material available on record.
ANALYSIS:
6. Taking into account the entirety of the f
