Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

CMP(M) No. 757 of 2026

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 169 days in filing the appeal is condPoned. The application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 317 of 2026

The present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner seeking consideration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 3788 of 2019, titled as Salochna Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, dated 17.11.2025.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by upholding the order dated 20.05.2010, (Annexure P-1,) whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority as Clerk from the date of her initial ad hoc promotion i.e. 28.06.1991 till 17.11.1995, when regular promotion to the said post was granted, came to be rejected.

3. The reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge were that the promotion was not made in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which was in excess of the prescribed quota and was only a stop-gap arrangement. Therefore, the benefit of such ad hoc service could not be granted for the pPurpose of seniority. Therefore, the claim for regularizat.ion, arrears, and promotion, as raised in the writ petition initially filed before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and upon its abolition, transferred back to the High Court for decision, came to be rejected.

4. Learned Sringle Judge has relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue i.e. in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (19 90) 2 SCC 715, and Keshav Chandra Joshi and Others Vs. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 272, and has quoted the relevant portions thereof, which we do not wish to repeat again.

5. Similarly, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Aghore Nath Dev and others (1993) 3 SCC 371 and Vinod Giri Goswami and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others(2020) 13 SCC 161, for the said relief to be denied.

6. Learned Single Judge, while keepinPg in view the aforesaid settled principles of law in mi.nd, came to the conclusion that the claim for grant of seniority as Clerk with effect from 28.06.1991 was not sustainable, as the petitioner had already been granted regular promotion on 17.11.1995 and no retrospective promotion could be granted. Horwever, it has been noticed that the persons who were appointed as Clerks by way of direct recruitment and promotion between 28.06.1991 and 17.11.1995 had not been arrayed as party respondents. The grant of the relief claimed would certainly unsettle the seniority and would amount to passing an adverse order behind their back, which was impermissible in law. Moreover, the initial promotion being in excess of quota which was dehors the Rules and could not be counted for the said purpose.

7. It was factually recorded that 143 Class-IV posts were in excess upto 14.08.1990 and beyond the prescribed 15% quota meant for the category of the petitioner i.e. Class-IV (Non-Technical Staff) in the promotional cadre. The same was not in accordPance with law and, therefore, such promotion, bein.g purely a stop-gap arrangement made in exigencies of service, did not confer any legal right to claim the benefit of the said service for the purpose of seniority and that no indulgence was shown to the petitioner.

8. We have arlso gone through the order dated 22.03.2010(Annexure P-2), whereby the claim was rejected by the authorities, the same having been passed in pursuance to the earlier directions issued in CWP No. 46 53 of 2008, decided on 28.03.2010. It is pertinent to note that the writ petition was disposed of and the Board had