( 2025:HHC:25007 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 313 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025 __________________________________________________ Narender Mehta ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present LPA is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.1003 of 2020 titled Narender Mehta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, on 07.04.2025, whereby the Writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein has been dismissed. 2. The challenge in the Writ petition as such was to the order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-10), whereby the State Government has rejected the case of the petitioner, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 wherein he has prayed for the pay scale of 15600- 39100+7800/- grade pay to the upgraded post of Joint Registrar in the HP State Consumer Commission. The reason which weighed to the State as such was that the matter had been examined at the Government level and it was noticed that the employee had got three promotions/up-gradations in 8 years and the said decision was thus passed. 3. The challenge has also been raised to the noting portion as such and final decision dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-13), wherein when the matter was again examined by the Finance Department, it reiterated its earlier opinion dated 31.07.2019. Apart from quashing of the said decision, a prayer as such is made to direct the respondents to implement the decision taken by the Council of Ministers in its meeting dated 10.04.2017 in its entirety by extending all the benefits. Resultantly, grade pay of Rs.7800/- as such has been prayed for w.e.f. 07.10.2017, when the Writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Registrar alongwith the payment of arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum has also been prayed for. 4. The learned Single Judge in a well deliberated erudite discussion has given justifiable reasons to dismiss the 3 Writ petition, primarily on the ground that the Administrative Department had placed the matter before the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 10.04.2017 and approved point No.(iii), whereby the post of Registrar was to be retained in HAS cadre and the proposal given for framing of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules was ordered to be processed. 5. It was noticed that the Writ petitioner had been ordered to be promoted as Joint Registrar after a period of two years and Additional Registrar after four years by up-gradation of the post as a personal measures to the incumbent. The earlier cabinet decision had been withdrawn by it on 22.12.2021 and the proposal put up has duly been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 10, which reads as under:- “Points for consideration As a part of the decision taken by the CMM in its meeting held on 10/04/2017 has been implemented by the Administrative Department by up-grading the post of Assistant Registrar to the post of Joint Registrar in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+Rs.6000/- GP as a measure personal to the present incumbent i.e. Sh. Narender Mehta w.e.f 01/10/2017 and by promoting him 4 to the said post. The pay scale of Rs. 15600- 39100+Rs.6600/- GP has been granted to the present incumbent in pursuance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal on dated 3rd August, 2017 in TA No. 6096 of 2015 titled Sita Ram Dhiman V/s State of H.P & Others. However, the pay structure of the said post is sub-judice in the Hon'ble High Court. Now, to implement the rest part of the decision taken by the CMM, the post of Joint Registrar is required to be up-graded as Additional Registrar and the incumbent is required to be promoted to the said post. Hence, the following points are submitted for consideration of the CMM:- (i) Whether the pay scale of Rs. 15600- 39100+Rs.7600/- may be granted to the up-graded post of Joint Registrar, H.P. State Consumer Commission as claimed by him by filing CWP No. 1003/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh for which tentative financial implications will be as under:- Existing Scale of the post of Assistant Registrar w.e.f 01/10/2017 to 30/09/2021 Proposed Scale to the post of Joint Registrar w.e.f 01/10/2017 to 30/09/2021. Average per month Difference in salary of the officer (GP+DA+IR) Approximately Financial implications w.e.f 01/10/2017 to 30/09/2021 ₹15600- 39100+ 6600/- ₹15600- 39100+ ₹ 7600/- ₹3500/- (Approximately.) ₹3500/-x 48 months= 1,68,000/- (ii) Whether the decision taken by the CMM in its meeting held on 10/04/2017 may be implemented by up-grading the post of Joint Registrar to the post of Additional Registrar in the pay scale of ₹ 15600-39100+ ₹ 7800/- GP by promoting present incumbent to the said post in the 5 absence of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. There is only difference of ₹ 200/- between the Grade Pay of the post of Joint Registrar and Additional Registrar. (iii) Whether the Additional Registrar may be given chance of promotion as Registrar after two (02) years service as Additional Registrar by creating a separate post of Registrar Coordination as per CMM decision taken on 10/04/2017 in the absence of Recruitment & Promotion Rules.” 6. Resultantly, it was noticed that vide second decision as such, the respondents have granted pay scale of Rs.15600+39100+7600 Grade Pay, but regarding his promotion to the higher post after completing four years has not been agreed to as the same had been done in favour of the petitioner as per personal measures from 01.10.2017.Resultantly, the question as such which was framed by the learned Single Judge was as under:- “Whether Council of Ministers could have retraced from its earlier decision taken in its meeting held on 10.04.2017, pursuant to which petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Registrar, after his having served as Assistant Registrar for two years?” 7. Keeping in view the above question, the learned Single Judge then came to the conclusion that once the cabinet had decided to retract from its earlier decision and 6 concurred with the proposal of the Administrative Department to grant him the pay scale against the upgraded post, but it had refused to grant him promotion to the post of Additional Registrar in the absence of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. 8. The argument raised as such that the Council of Ministers could not retract from its earlier decision, when part of it, stood implemented on account of filing of affidavits before this Court, was rejected on the ground that it was purely a discriminatory exercise of power without such right flowing from any Rule and no right can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Registrar. The undertaking, if any, given by any of the Officer as such could not bind the Cabinet since the undertaking given was prior to the decision dated 22.12.2021. Thus, the Administrative Head as such had placed the matter before the Council of Ministers, which has not been accepted. 9. Learned Single Judge had also noted that three promotions had been granted at last stage and there were no Recruitment & Promotion Rules on the basis of which the claim could be put forth. It is relevant to notice that in the year 2011, 7 the petitioner was promoted as Private Secretary, thereafter on 30.09.2015, he was promoted as Assistant Registrar and on 06.10.2017, he was promoted as Joint Registrar. Resultantly, on account of the fact that only personal measures have been given to him regarding his promotion as Joint Registrar, it was held that the prayer as such for further promotion as Additional Registrar on completion of four years could not be given. It was also noticed that the grade pay of Rs.7600/- has been granted to the petitioner for the said post and the said fact was also approved by the Cabinet to that limited extent. The order dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure P-6) reads as under:- “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to order promotion of Shri Narender Mehta, Assistant Registrar to the up-graded post of Joint Registrar in H.P. State Consumer Commission in the pay Scale of Rs.15600-39100+6000 Grade Pay, as a personal measure, with effect from 01.10.2017 or assuming the charge of the promotional post.” 10. The argument raised that there was as such disobedience on the part of the Officers responsible for furnishing the affidavit dated 07.09.2021 as such was accordingly rejected while noting that the Cabinet had previously granted the benefit of promotion on sympathetic 8 grounds and decided not to grant further promotion. The claim for further promotion on the basis of earlier decision taken on 10.04.2017 thus did not stand as the argument raised that the amendment could not have retrospective effect and reliance on Civil Appeal No. 4174-82 of 1995 titled Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others by the counsel for the appellant was distinguished on the ground that there was pre-existing right under the Rules and therefore in such circumstances the said judgment would not be applicable. 11. The Latin maxims “qui potest quodlibet, potest quodlibet inferius” (he who can do greater, can do lesser) was referred to in paragraph 22 by the learned Single Judge and it was noticed that no challenge has been raised to the decision of Council of Ministers withdrawing said benefit and the petitioner has no enforceable cause of action. The post of Joint Registrar having not been sanctioned under the relevant rules and the necessary requisite qualifications from the feeder cadre not being there and the lack of legal enforceability and no cause of action accruing and the balance of convenience of the petitioner already being there since he had earned three promotions in short span weighed with the learned Single 9 Judge as such to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Mr. Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel has been at pains to point out that various orders were passed by the learned Single Judge in view of the affidavit firstly filed on 07.09.2021 and directions were issued by way of interim order dated 19.08.2021, wherein the matter had been deferred for clarification whether the decision of cabinet was to be implemented or not and similarly on 16.09.2021 that the petitioner was liable to be promoted from 01.10.2021 and in the order dated 18.12.2021, it was informed that the matter was in active consideration and the same will be placed before the next Cabinet. 13. It is accordingly vehemently argued that the Court as such was kept in the dark and the matter was placed before the Cabinet and the cabinet has reconsidered the issue and therefore, it is submitted that the same should not have been permitted in the manner in which it was put before the cabinet and has led to the adverse decision. 14. We have also referred to the relief(s) as such, which have been claimed in the writ petition, apart from quashing of the orders. The major relief, which no longer 10 remains is that since the petitioner had already got his grade pay of Rs.7600/- as Joint Registrar and which was the claim in the initial representation and was against the grade pay of Rs.7800/-. The second prayer is sought for the implementation of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers in its entirety for the grant of grade pay of Rs.7800/- and thus in fact a Writ of mandamus is prayed for to enforce the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 10.04.2017, which now stands superseded by the second decision dated 21.12.2021, which has already been reproduced above. Thus the Cabinet after applying its mind on the financial implications and the absence of Rules modified its earlier proposal. 15. Once the edifice as such, for the grant of mandamus is absent, we do not see any reason that how the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from legal defect. A mandamus can only be granted, when there is statutory rule or legally enforceable right and in the absence of the same, the Writ court cannot direct or grant any benefit. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and Others vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo reported in (2007) 15 SCC 129, wherein it has been held that only when there exists 11 a legal right for the Writ petitioner there would be a corresponding legal obligation upon the State. Thus in the absence of the same in the Recruitment Rules the same which could not have been sought to be enforced and cannot be granted. Had there been any such Rule, the matter would have been different. It was a discretion being given by the Council of Ministers at that point of time, which now stands withdrawn. 16. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the withdrawal was way back in the year 2021 and there has been no apparent challenge to the said withdrawal by way of amendment of the Writ petition during the pendency of the same. 17. In such circumstances, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no ground as such to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is trite law that all interim orders eventually merge into the final order and therefore whatever orders had been passed by the learned Single Judge have been merged in the final order. The said orders were only the guiding factor in which way the matter or proceedings were decided during the pendency of the litigation before the learned Single Judge and 12 therefore would not as such have any binding effect at the time of final pronouncement. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 694, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “21. A precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue cannot be a precedent. Any reasons assigned in support of such non-final interim order containing prima facie findings, are only tentative. Any interim directions issued on the basis of such prima facie findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. 22. The observations and directions in Kapil Hingorani (I) and (II) being interim directions based on tentative reasons, restricted to the peculiar facts of that case involving an extraordinary situation of human rights violation resulting in starvation deaths and suicides by reason of non- payment of salaries to the employees of a large number of public sector undertakings for several years, have no value as precedents. The interim directions were also clearly in exercise of extra-ordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution. It is not possible to read such tentative reasons, as final conclusions, as contended by the respondent. If those observations are taken to be a final decision, it may lead to every disadvantaged group or every citizen or every 13 unemployed person, facing extreme hardship, approaching this Court or the High Court alleging human right violations and seeking a mandamus requiring the state, to provide him or them an allowance for meeting food, shelter, clothing, salary, medical treatment, and education, if not more. Surely that was not the intention of Kapila Hingorani (I) and (II).” 18. Resultantly, the present Appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 22nd July, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge