Allowed

Ravinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Aug 2024CWP/3259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A District Controller denied induction into the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service after intra-departmental promotions challenged his rejection order. The court held that absent a clear option warning him that accepting departmental promotion would bar HPAS induction, he retained eligibility, quashed the rejection and directed DPC consideration with seniority.

What did the court decide?

Annexure P-11 dated 06.04.2024 quashed; respondents directed to constitute DPC within four weeks and consider petitioner for HPAS induction from date junior was inducted, with seniority above immediat

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:8428

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 3259 of 2024 Decided on: 13.08.2024

¶4

Ravinder Singh … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶11

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily

¶12

prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶13

“a) That a writ of Certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing the Annexure P-11 dated 6th April 2024. b) the respondents be directed to approve the case of the petitioner with respect to his induction into the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service by Reviewing DPC Proceedings, in terms of the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP(T) No. 12130 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 12131 of 2008). The petitioner may also be held entitled to all consequential benefits from his due date of induction at par with other officers who are junior and

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

2024:HHC:8428

¶17

already stand inducted to HPAS and shall be placed above the juniors in seniority.

¶18

c) That a writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent No. 1 to 3 directing them to induct the petitioner in to cadre HPAS from the date when his juniors were inducted and place him in seniority list above his juniors.”

¶19

2. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared in Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Combined Competitive Examination 2010. He qualified the same and was offered the post of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, vide Annexure P-1. He joined as such pursuant to issuance of notification dated 22.12.2012 (Annexure P-3) at Mandi. Vide Annexure P-5, the respondents promoted the petitioner against the post of Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and the petitioner joined as such w.e.f. 21.06.2016. As per the petitioner, no option was sought from him when this promotion was conferred upon him that this would debar his induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service. The petitioner thereafter was promoted against the post of Joint Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs on 31.05.2019 vide Annexure P-8 without seeking his option that the same shall bar him from induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service.

¶20

3. As per the petitioner, the post of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs is one of the feeder posts

¶21

¶22

2024:HHC:8428

¶23

for induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service by way of promotion. However, on account of intra departmental promotions conferred upon the petitioner, he has been denied induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service from the quota which comes to the category of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. The representation made by the petitioner in this regard has been rejected vide Annexure P-11, dated 06.04.2024, by assigning the reason that once a candidate is promoted as per the option exercised, such candidate will neither be entitled for consideration for promotion in the other channel nor he will be allowed to withdraw the option so exercised and his/her option shall be treated as final and irrevocable for entire career. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove.

¶24

4. The stand of the respondents is that the appointment to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service is made in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services Rules, 1973. In terms of said Rules, 50% of posts are to be filled in by way of direct recruitment, 25% from amongst the Tehsildars who fulfill the eligibility criteria, 17% from the Block Development Officers who fulfill the eligibility criteria and 8% from the substantive holders of the categories mentioned therein which includes the post of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. As per the

¶25

¶26

2024:HHC:8428

¶27

State, Rule 7(1)(d) mentions that only substantive holder of categories of post mentioned therein is entitled for promotion and as the petitioner was holding the higher post of Joint Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, which was different from the substantive post in issue, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for. It is also the stand of the respondents that once the petitioner gained intra Departmental promotions, he ceased to occupy the substantive post of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and as the petitioner voluntarily elected to gain intra Departmental promotions, therefore, now he cannot claim that he is entitled for induction into Himachal Pradesh

¶28

Administrative Service.

¶29

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

¶30

6. The moot issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. The same is as to whether the petitioner who was initially appointed against the substantive post of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs looses his right to be inducted by way of promotion into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service on account of his gaining intra Department promotions?

¶31

7. The issue in fact is no more res integra. This Court in CWP(T) No. 12130 of 2008 , titled as Kameshwar Singh Dhaulta and

¶32

¶33

2024:HHC:8428

¶34

others vs. State of H.P. and others , decided on 29.03.2011, has held that if the State wants that persons who are promoted in their own department should forgo their claim to be appointed to the HAS then it must seek an option from such persons and must make clear to them that in case they choose to seek appointment in their own department, they will forgo their right to be considered for promotion in the HAS in terms of Rule 7 thereof. It is only if such an option is given and an employee agrees to be promoted in his department then it can be said that he has forgone his right to be considered for appointment to the HAS.

¶35

8. This view was reiterated by this Court in CWP No. 1219 of 2021 , titled as Sanjay Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , decided on 04.03.2023, wherein after relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in Kameshwar Singh Dhaulta’s case (supra), this Court held as under:

¶36

“10. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention that the judgments which have been referred to by me in the above part of the order, i.e. in Kameshwar Singh Dhaluta (supra) and Sudhir Kumar (supra), were the pronouncements made by Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court, which were assailed by the State by way of Letters Patent Appeal, but the same were not pressed, meaning thereby that the judgment passed by Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court have attained

2024:HHC:8428

finality.

11. The second issue, which has been raised by the State justifying its act of denying the induction of the petitioner to Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service that the petitioner has gained intra departmental promotion is exactly the issue which is squarely covered by the pronouncement of this Court in Kameshwar Singh Dhaulta’s case (supra).

¶41

12. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee within a period of six weeks from today and consider the case of the petitioner for induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service as from the year when person junior to him in the Department was inducted into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is otherwise found eligible for induction, then he will be granted seniority above the person immediate junior to him in the Department in Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits including seniority etc. as from the date of his induction, but monitory benefits shall be notional as till the date of pronouncement of the judgment and thereafter actual benefits shall be granted.”

¶42

Applying the ratio laid down by this Court in above two

2024:HHC:8428

judgments, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the act of the respondents of not considering the petitioner for promotion/ induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service is not at all justified.

¶47

10. Though, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been conferred intra departmental promotions but no material has been placed on record by the respondents to the effect that when said promotions were conferred upon the petitioner, he was categorically told that by virtue of his accepting said promotions he would be debarring himself from induction/promotion into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service.

¶48

11. In fact, there is a categorical assertion made by the petitioner in the writ petition that when the petitioner was conferred intra departmental promotions, no option was taken from him nor he was informed that he would be rendering himself ineligible for induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service if he is accepting such promotions. The respondents could not demonstrate to the contrary.

¶49

12. Therefore, in the backdrop of what has been discussed hereinabove, the act of the respondents of not considering the petitioner for promotion to Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service from the feeder category of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, is hereby held to be bad. Annexure P-11

¶50

¶51

2024:HHC:8428

¶52

dated 06.04.2024, is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee within a period of four weeks from today and the petitioner be considered for induction into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service as from the date his junior was inducted into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service. It is further directed that in case the petitioner is otherwise found eligible for promotion into Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service, then he shall be placed above his immediate junior in the Department. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the benefits including seniority as from the date of induction in Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service but monetary benefits shall be notional as up to the date of filing of the petition and thereafter, actual benefits shall be granted. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶53

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶54

August 13, 2024 ( narender )

Ravinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varsha Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

Sunita Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Maya Devi Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Dev Raj and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajesh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Anr.