IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1065 of 2021 Decided on 08th July 2026 Palas Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Vinod Chauhan and Amar Dev Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the impugned order dated 04.12.2020 contained in Annexure P-8 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion against the post of Male Health Supervisor from the date he completed training i.e. well before the date of his superannuation as has been done in the case of private respondent No.4, within time bound period with all consequential benefits.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a Male Health Worker on 04.07.1991. Vide communication dated 22.02.2020, the petitioner as well as 2 other Male Health Workers were directed to participate in a 15 days training which was necessary for promotion against the post of Male Health Supervisor. The petitioner successfully completed this training and the factum of the petitioner being sent for training and his completing the training successfully, is borne out from Annexures P-1 to P3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P-4, the private respondent on the recommendation of the DPC was promoted against the post of Male Health Supervisor on regular basis, whereas, the petitioner who was otherwise senior to the private respondent, was ignored for the said promotion. As per the petitioner, as he had successfully completed the necessary training which made him eligible for promotion against the post of Male Health Supervisor much before he was superannuated on 30.04.2020, the act of the Department of promoting the private respondent against the post of Male Health Supervisor and ignoring the petitioner is not sustainable. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the seniority list of Male Health Workers, the petitioner was at Sr. No. 442 whereas the private respondent 3 was at Sr. No. 395. He further submitted that on account of the COVID-19 pandemic though the petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2020 but his services were continued initially up to 31.08.2020 and thereafter up to 31.12.2020. In view of this, the petitioner ought to have been promoted against the post of Male Health Supervisor as he continued to be in service as on the day when the private respondent was so promoted. He also submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed CWP No. 2812 of 2020, before this Court, which was disposed of by the Court with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and in compliance to the order of the Court dated 13.08.2020, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent Authority Vide Annexure P-8, dated 04.12.2020. Learned Counsel again reiterated that in view of the fact that the petitioner continued to serve the Department when the private respondent was promoted against the post of Male Health Supervisor, through on extension basis, denial of promotion to the petitioner is bad in law. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondent Department of not conferring promotion to the petitioner against the post of Male Health Supervisor because the date on which promotion was conferred upon the private respondent, on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner stood superannuated from service. He submitted that the extension that was given to the petitioner and many other similarly situated persons on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, could not have been construed as if the age of superannuation of the petitioner stood enhanced. He submitted that it was in the exigency of service that extension was given to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and in terms of the orders that were issued by the Authorities, no right of promotion stood conferred upon the petitioner post superannuation. With regard to the impugned Order that has been passed by the competent Authorities, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that perusal thereof would demonstrate that the same is both a reasoned and a speaking order. The Authority has taken into consideration the entire 5 factual matrix as well as the Rules and Regulations in vogue as well as the provisions which govern the field and has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 6. The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1991 as a Male Health Worker. The promotional post from the said post is that of Male Health Supervisor. In terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which are on record, the post is a non-selection post which is to be filled in 100% by promotion from amongst Male Multi-Purpose Health Workers, who have undergone 15 days promotional training of Male Health Supervisor from a recognized training school. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did undergo this training which he completed on 12.3.2020 i.e., about 28 days before his age of retirement. It is also not in dispute that no DPC was held before 31.03.2020, for 6 promotion against the post of Male Health Supervisor. 7. It is also not in dispute that on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, petitioner as well as other similarly situated officials were given extension in service in exercise of powers vested in the Authority under Clause 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Epidemic Disease (COVID-19) (Amendment), Regulations 2020. A perusal of the orders that were passed by the Authorities while extending the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, demonstrates that the date of superannuation of the incumbents who were to retire on 31.03.2020, 30.04.2020 and 31.05.2020, was deferred and extended up to 30.06.2020 and Medical Officers and Paramedical staff of the Departments of Health and Family welfare and Medical Education and Research who had retired upon attaining the age of superannuation between 31.12.2017 to 29.02.2020 were reemployed on the last post held with effect from 01.04.2020 till further order. 8. As mentioned hereinabove, the extension in service was granted to the petitioner up to 31.12.2020. The moot issue before this Court is as to whether the extension in service that 7 was granted to the petitioner on account of the extraordinary situation that was prevailing in the entire world, not to speak of the nation, confers upon the petitioner the right to seek promotion to the next promotional post? 9. The Department of Personnel of the Government of Himachal Pradesh has codified various notifications/ orders/guidelines/instructions/ rules, relating to the service matters. 10. This is by way of a Handbook on Personal Matters. Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personal Matters, Volume-II, Edition 2021 deals with extension and re-employment. Clause 22.1 of the said chapter defines superannuation as superannuation is retirement from the service on attainment of specific age. Clause 22.2 defines the distinction between extension and re-employment. In terms thereof, extension in service is continuance in service and the Officer/Official does not superannuate or retires on reaching the age of superannuation. 11. The period of extension in service counts for qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other 8 retirement benefits, besides entitling the incumbent to full-pay allowances and increments etc. Re-employment on the other hand has been described as employment after actual superannuation or retirement. 12. This means that extension in service means wherein an incumbent is allowed to continue in service beyond the period of superannuation without the incumbent actually getting superannuated as on the date of superannuation. On the other hand, re-employment means where further employment is given to an incumbent after he actually superannuates or retires from the service. 13. In the present case, extension was given to the petitioner on account of the extraordinary situation by the Department and the authority concerned by invoking the provisions of Clause 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Epidemic Disease (COVID-19) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022. Clause 22.8 of Chapter 22 on the Handbook on Personal Matters further provides that no Government Servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of 9 service. 14. This particular instruction is based on the general instruction of the MHA (OM) No. 26/3/68-ESESP, dated 04.10.1968. A perusal of the order that was passed by the authority on the representation of the petitioner demonstrates that what weighed with the Authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner was the fact that in terms of Clause 22.8 of Chapter 22 of Handbook on Personal Matters, that this Government Order dated 25.3.2020, promotion could not have been conferred upon the petitioner during the period of extension of service. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner under normal circumstances was to superannuate on 30.04.2020. It is also not in dispute that as on 31.03.2020, no DPC was conducted by the Department for conferring promotion against the post of Male Health Supervisor. 16. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the extension that was given to the petitioner beyond 31.03.2020 though entitled him for all other service benefits which have been referred to hereinabove and 10 which are also culled out from the instructions which are contained in Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personal Matters, but right of promotion to the next higher post is not contemplated nor provided for, during the period of extension. 17. On the other hand, in terms of Clause 22.8, which clause is based on GI MHA (OM) dated 04.10.1968, there is a bar that no promotion will be conferred upon an employee during the period of extension of service. Now, incidentally, there is no challenge to the said OM in this writ petition. That being the case, this Court is also of the considered view that as right for promotion, if any, was there with the petitioner only till the date of his superannuation and this right did not got extended by virtue of the extension that was granted to the petitioner to continue as a Male Health Worker on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion against the post of Male Health Supervisor after 31.03.2020, cannot be faulted with. Similarly, the order that has been passed by the Authority, dated 04.12.2020, in terms whereof the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, can also not be faulted with, for the reason that the order is a 11 reasoned and a speaking order and this Court also concurs with the findings which are contained therein as to why the petitioner was not entitled for promotion to the post of Male Health Supervisor after 31.03.2020. 18. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 08, 2026 (Vinod)