IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.: 3423 of 2019 Date of Decision: 18.06.2026 ________________________________________________________ Karam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “a) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner from the post of Male Health Worker to the Post of Male Health Supervisor before the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.08.2013, notionally, with all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that he was appointed as Male Health Worker in the year 1985. The next 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:23194 ) promotional post was of Male Health Supervisor. As per office order dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure P-1), the Male Health Workers were selected to undergo promotional training of fifteen-days on the basis of their seniority and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 13 in the said office order. The petitioner underwent the aforesaid training. However, upon completion of the training, the respondents-State failed to take steps to promote him to the post of Male Health Supervisor. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 10.07.2013 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No. 2, seeking promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor. In the said representation, he had submitted that he is due to retire/superannuate on 30.08.2013 and requested that his case for promotion be considered. It was also stated that the petitioner might retire without promotion if the DPC is not convened before 30.08.2013. However, no DPC was convened and the petitioner retired on 30.08.2013 from the post of Male Health Worker. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that he was deprived of his promotional avenue due to the lackadaisical attitude of the respondents, despite the fact that the posts of Male Health Supervisors were lying vacant at the relevant 3 ( 2026:HHC:23194 ) time. The respondents had earlier promoted the similarly situate persons to the posts of Male Health Supervisors even before one day prior to the date of their superannuation. However, in the case of the petitioner, the representation submitted by him was not considered, thereby depriving him of his rightful claim for promotion. Such action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been subjected to discrimination despite being similarly situate to other employees, who were granted the benefit of promotion. Thus, he has prayed that the respondents be directed to promote him to the post of Male Health Supervisor with all consequential benefits. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition. It has been averred in the reply that the petitioner was selected to undergo the promotional training for his promotion to the next higher post, which training he undertook w.e.f. 03.10.2012 to 18.10.2012. However, in the meanwhile due to the State Assembly Elections in the year 2012, the Model Code of Conduct was imposed and came into force w.e.f. 03.10.2012 to 24.12.2012, due to which the process of promotion could not be carried out and undertaken in the matter. It has further 4 ( 2026:HHC:23194 ) been averred that the Model Code of Conduct was lifted on 24.12.2012 and thereafter the process for completing all the codal formalities including the collection of Annual Confidential Reports and Integrity Certificates of the eligible officials, including the present petitioner, for their promotions to the next higher post of Male Health Supervisors was underway. In the meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 06 of 2012 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 30143/2009 filed by the H.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation and Anr., had passed an interim order on 07.01.2013, whereby restraining the State Government from making any promotion. It has further been averred that I.A. No. 06 of 2012 was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 13.09.2013 with directions to the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a final decision on the issue within a period of three months from the said date, with further observations that till a final decision is taken, the direction restraining the State of Himachal Pradesh from making any promotion shall continue. Due the aforementioned circumstances, the promotion could not have been taken place in the Department till 30.10.2013. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts pleaded in the reply. 5 ( 2026:HHC:23194 ) 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and also perused the case file carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed his training as per the office order dated 20.09.2012 as on 18.10.2012, but due to the Model Code of Conduct imposed on account of the State Assembly elections, which came into force on 03.10.2012 till 24.12.2012, no steps could have been taken for making promotion. When the Model Code of Conduct was over on 24.12.2012, the respondents-State had taken active steps to complete the codal formalities, but on account of the interim stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.01.2013, the promotion order could not be issued. Admittedly, the petitioner had retired on 30.08.2013 and the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was in force on the said date. Due to these circumstances, which were beyond the control of the respondents-State, the promotion order could not be issued not only in the case of the petitioner but also in cases of other employees, who were also imparted the training for their promotion to the post of Male Health Worker and seniors to the petitioner. 6 ( 2026:HHC:23194 ) 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Major General H.M. Singh VSM Vs. Union of India and another, (2014) 3 SCC 670, to contend that since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, he should not suffer at the hands of the respondents- State. No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is no fault on the part of the employee, he/she should not suffer. But in the present case, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly, firstly, that Model Code of Conduct was imposed on account of the State Assembly Elections, which came into force on 03.10.2012 had remained in force till 24.12.2012 and thereafter on account of the stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.01.2013, the respondents could not finalize the process for making promotion of the eligible candidates to the posts of Male Health Supervisor. The respondents after the Model Code of Conduct was lifted on 24.12.2012, had commenced the process for completing all the codal formalities including the collection of Annual Confidential Reports and Integrity Certificates of all the eligible officials including the petitioner for his promotion to the next higher post of Male Health Supervisor, but it was only on account of the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.01.2013, 7 ( 2026:HHC:23194 ) the promotion order could not be issued and the petitioner retired from service on 30.08.2013. As such, it cannot be said that the respondents deliberately withheld the promotion of the petitioner, thereby depriving him of promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor. After passing the interim order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.01.2013, the matter was taken up on 13.09.2013 when directions were given to the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a final decision on the issue within a period of three months from the said date, with further observations that till a final decision is taken, the direction restraining the State of Himachal Pradesh from making any promotion shall continue. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, no promotion could be made and thus, it cannot be said that the respondents had purposely withheld the promotion of the petitioner. As such no illegality can be found in the action of the respondents-State. The plea raised by the petitioner that he has been subjected to discrimination is found to be devoid of merit for the reason that even the persons, who were senior to him and imparted the training were also not promoted to the posts of Male Health Supervisors. 8 ( 2026:HHC:23194 ) 9. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 18th June, 2026 (sushma)