( 2025:HHC:18338 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 3726 of 2019. Decided on : 16 th June, 2025. Maheshwar Dutt Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A. G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. (Oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i). That the impugned order dated 9.1.2012, annexure P-7 may very kindly be quashed and set aside. ii). That the respondents may be directed to grant all benefits due to the petitioner on account of promotion as Senior Special Private Secretary w.e.f. 1.2.2003 to 31.7.2003 i.e. till his retirement and thereafter his pensionary benefits may also be revised accordingly.” 2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Special Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 13,500- 16,800/- plus secretariat allowance of Rs.1000/- per month on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:18338 ) adhoc basis w.e.f. 01.02.2003. Petitioner joined as Senior Special Private Secretary on the same day i.e. on 01.02.2003. 3. One Shri C.R. Negi, who was also working as Special Private Secretary in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, filed O.A. No. 301 of 2003 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal inter alia assailing the promotion of petitioner as Senior Special Private Secretary. By an interim order dated 31.01.2003 the promotion of petitioner as Senior Special Private Secretary was stayed. The interim order passed by the learned Tribunal was vacated on 14.05.2004. Petitioner made a request on 28.05.2004 to the 2nd respondent to grant him financial and other benefits of the post of Senior Special Private Secretary as the interim order had been vacated. In response, the petitioner was informed that the decision could be taken only after finalization of the pending litigation. 4. Noticeably, Shri C.R. Negi had also filed another original application bearing O.A. No. 680 of 2003. Both the original applications bearing O.A. No. 301 of 2003 and 680 of 2003 were clubbed together. On closure of the Tribunal, both the original applications were transferred to this Court as CWP(T) Nos. 9313 of 2008 and 9941 of 2008. Both these petitions were finally decided by this Court vide order dated 3 ( 2025:HHC:18338 ) 27.06.2011 and the petitions were allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the representation dated 09.12.2002 made by Shri C.R. Negi afresh by passing self contained and reasoned order and also by taking into consideration existing instructions on the issue. The respondents were also directed to do the needful within 10 weeks. It was also made clear that in the event of Shri C.R. Negi succeeding, he would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. It was further clearly stipulated that the benefits which had already accrued to the private respondents would not be withdrawn. Petitioner herein was one of the private respondents in the said petitions. 5. The 2nd respondent, in compliance to the aforesaid orders decided the representation of Shri C.R. Negi on 23.11.2011. The claim made by Shri C.R. Negi was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner herein again represented to the 2nd respondent for grant of all consequential benefits since the petitioner had been promoted as Senior Special Private Secretary w.e.f. 01.02.2003 and had already joined the promotional post on the same day i.e. on 01.02.2003. 6. Noticeably, petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2003. 4 ( 2025:HHC:18338 ) 7. The 2nd respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure P-7). Hence this petition. 8. Respondents have filed their reply and have contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner on the strength of promotion order dated 10.01.2003 as learned Tribunal had stayed the aforesaid order vide order dated 31.01.2003. As per the respondents, the stay was vacated only on 14.05.2004 whereas the petitioner had superannuated on 31.07.2003. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner had submitted his joining report on 01.02.2003, but according to the respondents since the order of promotion had been stayed on 31.01.2003, as such the joining was of no use. Reference has been made to notification dated 01.02.2003 (Annexure R-II), whereby the factum of stay granted by the learned Tribunal on 31.01.2003 was notified. It is further submitted by the respondents that since the petitioner had not worked against the spot of Senior Special Private Secretary, he was not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. It is also the case of the respondents that the promotion cannot be made retrospectively. 5 ( 2025:HHC:18338 ) 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 10. No doubt, the service jurisprudence is against the grant of retrospective promotions save in excepted cases. Similarly, it is also the rule that the government servant cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, what he can seek is the right to be considered for promotion. However, the facts of instant case are distinguishable. The aforesaid principles will not apply to the case of the petitioner for the reason that he had already been promoted w.e.f. 01.02.2003 and he had joined on the promotional post on the same date. The promotion order had been issued on 10.01.2003. 11. The fact that the notification Annexure R-II was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 01.02.2003 itself reveals that the order of stay granted by the learned Tribunal was formally notified on 01.02.2003. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner herein, though impleaded as respondent in Original Application No. 301 of 2003, was not present before learned Tribunal on 31.01.2003 when the stay order was passed. The fact of the matter remained that the petitioner had joined on 01.02.2003. That being so, it is not a case where the 6 ( 2025:HHC:18338 ) petitioner was only being considered for promotion rather he already stood promoted. 12. Further, it can be seen that while disposing of CWP(T) Nos. 9313 of 2008 and 9941 of 2008 vide order dated 27.06.2011, this Court had not adjudicated on the merits of the claim of Shri C.R. Negi. His case was directed to be considered by the competent authority within 10 weeks. There was a specific direction that the benefit which had accrued to private respondents therein including the petitioner was not to be withdrawn. 13. The end result is that the claim of Shri C. R. Negi did not find favour with the respondents and his representation was rejected. The matter finally rested there. Since, the petitioner had already superannuated on 31.07.2003, he was divested from enjoying the benefits of his promotional post which had already been offered to him. 14. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioner falls under the excepted category and he cannot be divested of the benefits of the promotional post for no fault on his part. 15. The impugned order, Annexure P-7, whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected, also does not 7 ( 2025:HHC:18338 ) take care of the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The petitioner has been denied his dues only for the reason that his promotion was withheld on account of stay orders passed by the learned Tribunal and before the vacation of stay order the petitioner had already retired. 16. In light of above discussion, I find sufficient merit in the petition and the same is accordingly allowed. Order dated 09.01.2012, Annexure P-7 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits of the post of Senior Special Private Secretary w.e.f. 01.02.2003 to 31.07.2003 to the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. 17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 16th June, 2025. (jai)