Sanjeev Mahajan Vs the State of Hp and Another

( 2025:HHC:32727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 12078/2024 Decided on: 19.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeev Mahajan …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶4

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶5

For the petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶7

Petitioner superannuated from the respondents-Health

¶8

Department on 31.12.2020. He is still waiting for release of his pension and other retiral benefits as also the grant of benefits under the applicable Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and consequent revised pay fixation.

¶9

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered

¶10

the case file.

¶11

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

2

( 2025:HHC:32727

3. The case

3(i) The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer (Contract) on 24.10.1998. He continued to serve the department till the year 2006. During the course of his employment, FIR No.22/2006 was registered against him on 05.04.2006 at Police Station Khour, Jammu & Kashmir, under Sections 8, 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act 1985. Petitioner remained in custody in the said FIR from 05.04.2006 till 27.11.2009. Respondents placed the petitioner under suspension on 17.06.2006, w.e.f. 08.05.2006.

¶16

3(ii) Petitioner’s suspension was revoked on 16.07.2010. He accordingly, joined his duties in the respondents-Health Department. On 25.08.2011, the Court of competent jurisdiction ‘acquitted the petitioner of charge under Sections 8,21,23 and 29 of the NDPS Act, in terms of mandate of Section 273 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC)’.

¶17

3(iii) Respondent No.1 vide office order dated 20.06.2013 terminated petitioner’s service w.e.f. 08.05.2006 i.e. the date, when petitioner had been placed under suspension. Petitioner represented against termination of his service. His representation was considered by respondent No.1 and vide order dated 17.09.2013, petitioner’s services were taken back on contract basis w.e.f. 30.07.2010.

¶18

3 ( 2025:HHC:32727

¶19

3(iv) Petitioner assailed the order dated 17.09.2013 in Dr. Sanjeev Mahajan Vs. State of H.P.² Learned erstwhile Administrative Tribunal allowed the said petition and impugned order dated 17.09.2013 was quashed & set aside with direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 08.05.2006. As a necessary corollary, order dated 20.06.2013 was also quashed and set aside. There was an observation in the judgment that the decision would not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings or action as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: -

¶20

“9. Consequently, order dated 17.09.2013, Annexure P-11 is quashed and set aside and the respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant in service with effect from 8.5.2006 and the natural corollary of this order is that order dated 20.06.2013 also stands quashed and set aside. This order shall not preclude the respondent from initiation of appropriate proceedings or action as is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case against the applicant, in accordance with law.”

¶21

Respondents assailed Dr. Sanjeev Mahajan² by

¶22

instituting State of H.P. Vs. Dr. Sanjeev Mahajan³ . Petitioner feeling aggrieved against the part of order in Dr. Sanjeev Mahajan² to the extent that it granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against

¶23

him in the matter, also instituted Dr. Sanjeev Mahajan Vs. State of

¶24

2 TA No. 4631/2015 decided on 04.05.2017

¶25

3 CWP No. 2492/2017 decided a/w connected matter on 30.09.2020

¶26

4 ( 2025:HHC:32727

¶27

H.P.⁴ Both these writ petitions were decided on 30.09.2020 under a common judgment. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed. The last sentence occurring in paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside, thereby withdrawing the liberty given to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner. The writ petition preferred by the respondents-State was dismissed.

¶28

3(v) Pursuant to above, respondent No.1 on 10.06.2021 ordered ‘re-instatement of the petitioner in government service w.e.f. 08.05.2006 with all consequential benefits.’ As a corollary to the above order, respondent No.1 passed another order on 03.03.2022, regularizing the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 09.09.2008.

¶29

3(vi) In the meanwhile, petitioner had continued to discharge his duties till his superannuation on 31.12.2020. His grievances are that he has not been paid pension and other retiral benefits under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, even though he has to his credit much more than the requisite qualifying service; Benefits admissible under Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) (4-9-14) have also been not released to him, and for this reason, his pay has also not been revised/refixed, which would have cascading effect upon computation of his pension and other retiral benefits. Substantive prayers in the petition read as under: -

¶30

4 CWP No. 3471/2020 decided a/w connected matter on 30.09.2020

¶31

5 ( 2025:HHC:32727

¶32

“i. That respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of 4- 9-14 step up in terms of granting him higher pay band from the relevant dates i.e. on completion of 4-9-14 years of service and release his arrears of salary alongwith interest @ of 12% per annum from the date of its admissibility, on account of above step up and further determine his pension.

¶33

ii. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to count the contractual service of petitioner as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and grant him pension strictly in terms of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and disburse his due and admissible pension with effect from the date of his superannuation i.e. with effect form 31/12/2020 alongwith complete arrears.

¶34

III. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under old to pension scheme from the date of his superannuation alongwith arrears and interest @12%. iv. That the respondents be directed to release the gratuity, leave encashment and insurance due and admissible to the petitioner.”

¶35

3(vii) Respondents have not denied factual position put-

¶36

forth by the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. The only defence projected by the respondents is that his case for release of grant of benefits under the ACPS (4-9-14) is as yet pending consideration for want of availability of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner for the period in question. According to the respondents though all ACRs/Work and Conduct certificates of the petitioner including necessary integrity certificate for the period of his

¶37

6 ( 2025:HHC:32727

¶38

service from different offices, where he discharged his duties, are available with them, save & except the period between 2006 to 2010

¶39

i.e. the time during which the petitioner remained in jail.

¶40

4 . Consideration

¶41

In my considered view, respondents’ not releasing the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner and also not granting him the benefits under the applicable ACPS Scheme and thereby not revising/refixing his pay cannot be justified. It is an admitted position that petitioner’s ACRs’ for the period from 2006 to 2010 would not be available as the petitioner had remained in custody during the said period. Nonetheless the fact also remains that petitioner had been ‘acquitted’ by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 25.08.2011 prior to the stage of framing of charge. No disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The respondents cannot put the petitioner to any disadvantage for non-availability of his ACRs for the period he remained in custody. Non-availability of ACRs for the period cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Further, once the respondents themselves not only re-instated the petitioner w.e.f. 08.05.2006 with all consequential benefits, but also regularized his services taking into consideration the period of his previous service, there is no gain in saying in the stand of the respondents in their reply that for want of availability of his ACRs for the period from 2006 to 2010, they are not in a position to refix his pay/grant ACP and

¶42

7 ( 2025:HHC:32727

¶43

consequently not in a position to compute his pensionary and other

¶44

retiral benefits. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to para-16.30(b) of Chapter VI (Promotions and Selection Grade) of the Handbook on Personnel Matters Government of Himachal Pradesh Vol-I, which sets out the procedure to be followed, when ACR for any year has not been written and reads as under: -

¶45

“(b) When ACR for any year has not been written - Procedure to be followed

¶46

Sometimes proposals sent by various Departments to the Public Service Commission for meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotions do not contain some annual confidential reports specially for three to five years. These proposals do not even clarify whether the report for the particular year has not been written or if written the reason why it is not available. As a result, of which the working of the D.P.C is hindered and time is wasted. Accordingly while sending proposals for meetings of the D.P.C., it may be ensured that annual confidential reports of the eligible officers are complete and if the confidential report of a particular year is not available, the reason should be indicated so that the D.P.C. knows whether the reason for non-availability of the confidential report is non-writing of the report or any other reason.

¶47

In cases where one or more than one annual confidential report has not been written for any reason, then in such cases the Departmental Promotion Committee has to consider confidential reports of an equal number of preceding year(s). If such annual confidential reports are not then the D.P.C has to consider confidential reports of such officers/employees for the lower posts. In cases even this is not possible, then the whole available annual confidential reports should be considered.

¶48

(H.P. Govt. Deptt. of Personnel letter No. Karmik (Ni-II) B (19) - 7/91 dated 12-5-1992 -Annexure - 16.32)”

¶49

8 ( 2025:HHC:32727

¶50

As per the aforesaid provision, in cases where one or

¶51

more Annual Confidential Report have not been written for any reason, then the Departmental Promotion Committee, while considering the case of promotion of such an employee, has been mandated to take into account the Confidential Reports of an equal number of preceding year(s). If such Annual Confidential reports are also not available, then the Departmental Promotion Committee is required to consider Confidential Reports of the officers/employees for the lower posts. In case, even this is not possible, then all the available Annual Confidential Reports are to be taken into consideration.

¶52

It is for the respondents to act as per the prescribed procedure and take further action accordingly in the case of petitioner. There is no justification for sitting over the matter for an indefinite period and to deny the timely payment of retiral benefits as also the revised/refixed pay arrears to the petitioner on that count.

¶53

5 . In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits under applicable ACPS in accordance with para16.30(b) of Chapter 16 (Promotions and Selection Grade) of the Handbook on Personnel Matters Vol-I, Government of Himachal Pradesh, within three weeks. Petitoner’s pay shall accordingly be revised and refixed. Pension and other retiral benefits admissible to

¶54

9 ( 2025:HHC:32727

¶55

the petitioner shall be computed within three weeks thereafter and the same shall also be released to the petitioner within this total period of six weeks, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum. Necessary formalities in this regard be completed by both the sides with the aforesaid period. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances raised in this writ petition in accordance with law, at an appropriate stage. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶56

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶57

19^th September, 2025 (rohit)

Sanjeev Mahajan v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Mahajan v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Guddi Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Parminder Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Payal Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Prem Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another