Disposed¶25

Mani Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Jul 2026EX.PT/20/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Ex. Petition (T) No. 20 of 2026; execution petition; enforcement of writ direction; Mani Ram v. State of H.P.; CWPOA No. 1012 of 2019; review DPC; communication of ACRs; excluded ACRs 1992-93, 1993-94, 1997-98; Assured Career Progression Scheme; first proficiency step up; notional benefit w.e.f. 28.12.1991; benefit w.e.f. 26.02.1997; departmental inquiry; penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect; extended date of eligibility; fresh cause of action; appropriate substantive remedy; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted in execution; with the aforesaid observations the execution petition stands disposed of, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ¶25

Mani Ram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted in execution; with the aforesaid observations the execution petition stands disposed of, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the office order (Annexure A-2) implementing the decision in Mani Ram (CWPOA No. 1012 of 2019) wrongly granted the first proficiency step up w.e.f. 26.02.1997 instead of 28.12.1991, thereby denying the petitioner the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 8 years of service in accordance with law.

¶20

Court's answer

If the petitioner has any grievance against the benefits extended to him by the respondents under Annexure A-2, it is for him to seek an appropriate substantive remedy in accordance with law, since, in terms of the respondents' reply, he has a fresh cause of action which was not involved in Mani Ram (CWPOA No. 1012 of 2019); with these observations the execution petition stands disposed of.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution petition (Ex. Petition (T) No. 20 of 2026, HC Himachal Pradesh, decided 16.07.2026, Jyotsna Rewal Dua J.) seeking enforcement of Mani Ram v. State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No. 1012 of 2019 (decided 25.10.2024), wherein a review DPC had been directed, excluding uncommunicated ACRs for 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1997-98. Petitioner's grievance: the implementing office order (Annexure A-2) did not grant the Assured Career Progression Scheme benefit on completion of 8 years of service in accordance with law, fixing the first proficiency step up w.e.f. 26.02.1997 instead of 28.12.1991. On the respondents' plea, the notional benefit w.e.f. 28.12.1991 was withheld due to a pending departmental inquiry; a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect imposed on 26.02.1996 remained effective till 26.02.1997, on which basis the DPC treated 26.02.1997 as the extended date of eligibility. Held: the grievance constitutes a fresh cause of action not involved in the earlier decision, and the petitioner must seek an appropriate substantive remedy in accordance with law; execution petition disposed of, as were pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Ex. Petition (T) No. 20 of 2026 Decided on: 16.07.2026

¶3

Mani Ram …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and Ors

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

Petitioner seeks enforcement of Mani Ram Vs.

¶14

State of H.P. and others² . Operative part of the decision is as under:-

¶15

“31. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by issuing a direction to the respondents to convene a review DPC, for consideration of the case of the petitioner, by considering only those ACRs, which were duly communicated to him and excluding the ACRs for the years 1992¬93, 1993¬94 and 1997¬ 98. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from today and in case, the DPC finds the petitioner

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWPOA No. 1012 of 2019 decided on 25.10.2024

¶17

¶18

suitable for grant of the benefits, as claimed in the writ petition, the same be granted to him, along with all consequential benefits, from due date.”

¶19

2. Pursuant to above decision, respondents have

¶20

issued office order (Annexure A-2). Petitioner’s grievance is that Annexure A-2 does not grant benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 8 years of service in accordance with law; That petitioner was entitled to first proficiency step up w.e.f. 28.12.1991, whereas, respondentsDepartment while implementing the aforesaid decision, have given this benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 26.02.1997.

¶21

3. The respondents in their reply have pleaded that benefit of proficiency step up on completion of 8 years of service was notionally due to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.12.1991, however, the same was not granted to him at that stage due to pendency of departmental inquiry. Subsequently, penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner on 26.02.1996, which remained effective till 26.02.1997, therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee treated 26.02.1997 as the extended date of eligibility of the petitioner and his financial upgradation was accordingly regulated.

¶22

¶23

4. In case, petitioner has grievance to the benefits so extended to him by the respondents, it is for him to seek appropriate substantive remedy in accordance with law as in terms of reply, the petitioner has fresh cause of action, which was not involved in Mani Ram^2.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, this execution

¶25

petition to stand disposed of.

¶26

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 16, 2026 Judge R.Atal

Mani Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

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

Ram Nath and Others Vs the Hrtc and Others

Ravi Chand Anand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jaisi Ram Alias Jai Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S Paradise Distilleries Private Limited Vs State of Hp and Others

Jagriti and Another Vs the State of Hp and Another

Richa Sharma and Ors. Vs Ashish Kohli