Dismissed¶30

Yashpal Sharma v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Jul 2026CMP.M/1067/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotion; Centre Head Teacher; retrospective promotion after superannuation; delay and laches; sleeping over right of consideration; no representation; Code of Conduct elections; Departmental Promotion Committee; office order dated 27.08.2024; right to be considered for promotion, no fundamental right to promotion; Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi; Union of India v. N.C. Murali (2017) 13 SCC 575; delay condonation 66 days filing and 260 days re-filing; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; LPA dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal stands dismissed and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ¶30

Yashpal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal stands dismissed and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition seeking directions to promote the appellant to the post of Centre Head Teacher w.e.f due date with all consequential benefits, filed after his superannuation on 29.06.2024. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

In view of the appellant's five-year inaction (2019 to 2024), the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity in letter and spirit; resultantly, the appeal is dismissed and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

There is no specific averment in the writ petition regarding non-promotion, and no representation was ever made by the appellant seeking that relief.

¶26

Key takeaways

The Code of Conduct operated only at a subsequent point of time prior to retirement; before that the appellant made no effort to seek redressal and slept over his right of consideration, which could not be acted upon after the post-retirement promotion orders issued on the DPC recommendations.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. The Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice, and Bipin Chander Negi, Judge) upheld the learned Single Judge's order dated 24.04.2025 in CWP No.6696 of 2025 dismissing Yashpal Sharma's writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Centre Head Teacher w.e.f due date with all consequential benefits, the claim relating to vacancies of 2019 while the petitioner superannuated on 29.06.2024. The Bench found no specific averment of non-promotion in the writ petition and no representation for the relief; the Code of Conduct (elections) operated only shortly before retirement, and the promotion list was issued vide office order dated 27.08.2024, after retirement, on DPC recommendations. Having slept over his right of consideration for five years (2019-2024), the appellant could not justify retrospective relief. The learned Single Judge had relied on Government of West Bengal & Ors vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors (Civil Appeal No.13187 of 2024, decided 27.11.2024) and Union of India vs N.C. Murali (2017) 13 SCC 575, wherein it had been held that there is only a right to be considered for promotion and no fundamental right to promotion itself. Delays of 66 days in filing (CMP(M) No.1067 of 2026) and 260 days in re-filing (CMP No.16309 of 2026) the appeal were condoned.

¶1

2026:HHC:30051

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

LPA No. 424 of 2026 Decided on: 20.07.2026

¶4

Yashpal Sharma ......Appellant Versus State of H.P and another ...Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the appellant : Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

CMP No.16309 of 2026

¶9

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 260 days’ in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

¶10

CMP(M) No.1067 of 2026

¶11

Keeping in view the averments made in the

¶12

application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 66 days’ in

¶13

filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed

¶14

of.

¶15

¶16

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be

¶17

allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

-2-2026:HHC:30051

¶19

LPA No.424 of 2026

¶20

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.6696 of 2025, titled as Yashpal Sharma versus State of H.P & Anr. on 24.04.2025, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to promote him to the post of Centre Head Teacher w.e.f due date with all consequential benefits was dismissed.

¶21

It came to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was filed after one year of superannuation, which was on 29.06.2024 and the case for consideration for promotion to the said post was since the year 2019. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had already superannuated and had not made any efforts to seek appropriate remedy during the period of service, the relief, as sought, was thus with retrospective effect and could not be justified and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

¶22

Learned Single Judge had relied upon two basic judgments in cases Civil Appeal No.13187 of 2024 Government of West Bengal & Ors vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors decided on 27.11.2024 and Union of India vs N.C. Murali (2017) 13 SCC 575 wherein, it had been held that there is only right to be considered for promotion and there is no fundamental

¶23

-3-2026:HHC:30051

¶24

right to the promotion itself and resultantly, he was denied the

¶25

relief as sought.

¶26

We have gone through the file, as such and found that there is no specific averment regarding no promotion being made in the writ petition and even any representation was not made for seeking the said relief. Thus apparently, though the claim is that the vacancies were available in the year 2019 but the allegtion is that only due to Code of Conduct on account of elections, the petitioner had been deprived of his legal and legitimate right of promotion and just after two months of his retirement, the list of such promotees has been issued vide office order dated 27.08. 2024.

¶27

We are of the considered opinion that the Code of Conduct was only at the subsequent point of time i.e prior to the retirement and before that, no efforts, as such, had been made by the petitioner to seek any redressal, as such. The respondent could have been directed for filling up the posts but no representation had been filed by the appellant and he had slept over his right of consideration, which action could not be taken after passing of the subsequent promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and that is too, after his retirement.

¶28

In such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that

¶29

-4-2026:HHC:30051

¶30

the petitioner not having agitated for his grievances from the year 2019 till 2024 i.e. the period of five years, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity in letter and spirit. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶31

G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice

¶32

July 20, 2026 (meera)

¶33

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

Yashpal Sharma v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashpal Sharma 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanghmitra Sadhu Vs Union of India and Another

State of Hp through Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) Vs Bir Singh

Ram Saroop Vs Mc Shimla

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Sunil Kumar

Bhag Singh Sen Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Raghubir Singh Rana Vs State of Hp and Ors.