CWP No.1676 of 2019, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Bipin Chander Negi, J., oral) — Kamal Singh v. Union of India and others — decided 20.03.2026 — DISMISSED. Petition sought quashing of Annexure P-4, whereby a representation made in pursuance of the judgment dated 10-07-2018 in CWP No 148/2018 (Kamal Singh v. Union of India and others) seeking financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS, introduced in the respondent-Department on 09.08.1999) was denied, together with revised pension, retiral benefits and interest. Facts: petitioner appointed Constable on 18.03.1972, promoted Lance Naik on 06.01.1986 and Head Constable on 08.01.1990; the next promotional post (Sub Inspector) mandatorily required completion of the Platoon Commander Course per standing orders, which the petitioner refused to undergo, submitting unwillingness in which he categorically stated he had no need/desire of future promotion and no objection if his juniors were promoted (reproduced in Paragraph-5 of Annexure P-4). Court's holding (relying on Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 (2) SCC 151): if a regular promotion is offered and refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, he is not entitled to financial upgradation merely because of stagnation — it is not lack of promotional opportunities but the employee opting to forfeit promotion for personal reasons (doctrine of approbate and reprobate; Lissenden v. C.A.V. Bosch Ltd. referred within the quoted extract re OM dated 9-8-1999). Claimed parity with Sansar Dass (granted ACP vide order dated 10.07.2018, Annexure P-5) rejected as a bald averment with nothing on record showing similarity. Reliance on a Delhi High Court judgment (Annexure P-1) held mis-conceived and clearly distinguishable on facts — therein the petitioners never came within the zone of consideration, were not sent for the pre-promotional course, and made no refusal of promotion. Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.
