IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8591 of 2024 Decided on 27th July 2026 Sh. Vivek Negi and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: M/s C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh and Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus Or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents for considering the cases of Petitioners for taking appropriate steps for providing adequate promotion avenues, financial up gradation etc. from time to time during their services, for all intents and purposes within time bond manner. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari Or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to grant/consider the cases of the petitioners for providing better promotional chances to petitioners within time bound manner and also consider the case of the petitioners for promotion from the due date in accordance with law with all consequential benefits. 2 iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari Or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to grant/provide /implement the benefits of scheme such as DA ACP Scheme, Three Tire Scheme, Indian Skill Development Service Rules etc., keeping in view of the fact of stagnation of the petitioners in one post (Principal ITI), with all consequential benefits and re-fix the pay of the petitioners accordingly and also release the eligible benefits in favour of the petitioners along with 12% interest with in a time bound manner..” 2. Primarily, the grievance of the petitioners primarily is qua stagnation in the cadre of Principal. According to the petitioners, they were appointed directly against the post of Principal in various ITIs in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to them, there is no further promotion from this post nor is there any financial incentive by way of ACP etc., which is leading to frustration amongst the petitioners for want of growth avenues in the Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in number of judgments has been pleased to hold that there should be at least one or two promotional avenues in the service career of an employee; otherwise, he will lose the incentive to work. He submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also held that if there is a 3 situation that promotional avenues cannot be made available, then, some kind of financial impetus has to be given to the employee. He further submitted that in the present case, neither any financial upgradation has been given to the petitioners after their initial recruitment nor are there any promotional avenues. Accordingly, he submitted that the petition be allowed, as prayed for. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioners herein were appointed in the respondent-Department against the post of Principal, ITI, which is a Class-I Gazetted post, vide notification dated 05.07.2016. He submitted that this notification was issued after 01.01.2016, i.e., the date, when the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 came into force. He submitted that the Government vide FD instructions dated 03.01.2022 has ceased the placement in higher pay scale structure, i.e., four/three/two tier pay structures or ACPs., with the instructions that Assured Career Progression Scheme was available under the pre-revised pay structure, whereas, no such Scheme has been formulated under the revised pay structure. 4 Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that as far as stagnation against the post of Principal is concerned, the same is incorrect, as the Department has created/sanctioned three posts of Deputy Director (Training) for Industrial Training Institutes, which are filled in by convening a DPC at Government level from amongst the Principals, ITIs. He further submitted that in the ITIs., there are promotional avenues available to various post holders and a directly recruited Principal, ITI, also has the opportunity to get two promotions, i.e., one as a Senior Scale Principal, ITI and the other as Deputy Director (Training) in his entire service career. He submitted that in these circumstances, it cannot be said that there are no promotional avenues available for the petitioners, as is being canvassed by them. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that as it could not be disputed that there are promotional avenues available to various post holders in ITI as has been spelled out in Para-8 of the reply filed by the Department and that even for directly recruited Principal, ITI, 5 there are promotional avenues against the post of Senior Scale Principals, ITI and Deputy Director (Training), it cannot be said that the Service Regulations of the Department do not provide for any promotional avenues to the petitioners. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the promotional avenues are not in sync with the strength of the feeder cadre does not impress this Court, because, the promotional avenues have to be created by taking into consideration the administrative feasibility of the posts and not the need of a Government employee to be promoted to a higher post. 7. In some of the Departments, the hierarchy is such that it leads to stagnation at one point or the other and when an applicant applies for the post in issue, it is assumed that he is fully aware of all the avenues and benefit that the proposed service provides to him, including promotion. 8. As far as the contention of no monetary incentive in terms of the ACP Scheme is concerned, in light of the reply filed by the State, no direction can be issued to the respondents to confer the benefit of ACP Scheme to the petitioners, 6 because, it is a matter of record that after coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 01.01.2016, no Scheme has been formulated/notified under the revised pay structure for the grant of ACP. 9. Therefore, in light of the above discussions, as no relief being prayed for by the petitioners can be granted, the petition is dismissed. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is observed that as and when the Government decides to confer the benefit of ACP afresh to the employees of various Departments, the case of the petitioners be also considered sympathetically in this regard. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 27, 2026 (Vinod)