2025:HHC:21179 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA NO.470 of 2024 Decided on: 02.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Appellants Versus Sanjeev Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rishi Tandon, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.5865 of 2023, titled Sanjeev Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 12.07.2024, whereby the writ petition was decided in favour of the writ-petitioner and directions were issued to upgrade the post of the petitioner to that of one Senior Law Officer Class-I [Gazetted] as a personal measure to him, from the post of Law Officer which he is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:21179 - 2 - holding. What weighed with the learned Single Judge to issue the necessary directions was the communication dated 25.06.2021, (Annexure P-8), addressed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Resultantly the order dated 28.07.2023, (Annexure P-14), rejecting the case of the petitioner was quashed by coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had completed eight years of service and after the date of regularization he completed more than five years of service. 2. A perusal of the judgment would go on to show that the State had also granted similar benefits to one Vijay Kumar Kapila who had joined the Department as Laboratory Assistant Class-III on 24.01.1987 and thereafter he had been appointed as Law Officer only on 24.04.2012. On promotion his post was upgraded on 07.10.2017 to the post of Senior Law Officer. The contents of the said benefits being, as such, granted to Vijay Kumar Kapila was also reproduced in Para 3 of the writ order, which is under appeal. It is in such circumstances, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that merely because the petitioner was young 2025:HHC:21179 - 3 - being 41 years old could not give handle to the State, as such, to deny him the benefit of post of Senior Law Officer. It is relevant to note that the writ petition apparently was filed on the basis of the said benefit given. 3. The case of the petitioner, as such, which would be clear from his representation dated 21.08.2021 was based on the strength of the letter dated 24.07.2017, (Annexure P-4) whereby, firstly, the Additional Chief Secretary [Personnel] to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had written to various departments regarding the promotional avenues to the post of Assistant/Deputy Director [Legal] on the analogy of the Agriculture/IPH Department to the Law Officer working in various departments and the proposal for up-gradation of the existing posts as personal measure to the incumbents subject to the prior approval of Council of Ministers in consultation with Finance Department and completing other codal formalities. 4. Similarly, another communication addressed to the Administrative Secretaries, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh by the Chief Secretary, to the 2025:HHC:21179 - 4 - Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 25.06.2021, (Annexure P-8), would go on to show that keeping in view the earlier direction by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.5858 of 2017, titled Sonia Banyal Vs. State of H.P. on 04.04.2018 directions were issued to ensure opportunity of career advancement as the cadre of Law Officer was dying cadre. Therefore, for opportunity of advancement to be ensured providing of promotional avenue to the incumbents by way of up-gradation of their existing post(s) as a personal measure, keeping in view the merit of each case was provided. It is in such circumstances, on the strength of such letter of the State itself the relief had been sought. 5. Therefore, the argument of the State Counsel that the issuance of a mandamus was not permissible does not hold much substance. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner was able to set out, demonstrate and place material on record regarding the benefits granted to other persons one of which have been noticed by the learned Single Judge in the form of Vijay Kumar Kapila who got the benefit of up-gradation only after completion of five years of service as a Law Officer, in the Industries 2025:HHC:21179 - 5 - Department. 6. It is brought to our notice that in similar circumstances also one Sanjay Kumar Statistical Assistant was placed as a Law Officer Class-II [Gazetted] in the Directorate of Women and Child Development and Department of Social Justice & Empowerment on 08.10.2015 and was to be on probation for a period of two years. Before his probation period was also completed the benefit, as such of placement as Senior Law Officer was given to him on 24.07.2017 and the fact that his grade pay was increased from Rs.4400/- to Rs.5400/-. The relevant part of the Notification in favour of the said person which is similar to the benefit as granted to the Vijay Kumar Kapila also, reads as under: “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order for up-gradation the post of Law officer, Class-II [Gazetted] in the pay scale of Rs.10,300- 34800+Rs.4400 (Grade Pay) to that of Senior Law Officer Class-I [Gazetted] in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+5400/- (Grade Pay) as a measure personal (special case) to the present incumbent in the Department of Women & Child Development. The Upgraded post of Senior Law Officer will be downgraded to that of Law Officer, Class-II (Gazetted) as and when it falls vacant. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order the appointment of Shri Sanjay Verma, Law Officer as Senior Law Officer in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+5400 (Grade Pay) with immediate effect on regular basis. 2025:HHC:21179 - 6 - This issues with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department as obtained vide their U.O. No.53980036- Fin-F/2017 dated 19.06.2017.” 7. The order under challenge before the learned Single Judge was of 28th July, 2023 (Annexure P-14) wherein the justification was given regarding Sanjay Kumar that the total service length of incumbent was 19 years which as such weighed with the Principal Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to decline the relief. We are of the considered opinion that the benefit of the service period as a Law Officer would have been a criteria to grant the benefit of up-gradation and not the service period for the earlier positions held by virtue of the said employee, as such, came to be appointed as Law Officers. Only because petitioner is a direct recruit and having served for requisite period, of 8 years as a Law Officer should have weighed with respondent No.1 to grant him the relief. The benefit has also been given to other incumbents apparently in other departments after considering their length of service which is apparently the combination of service before they were appointed as Law Officer. This would be clear from the observation made in the order under challenge 2025:HHC:21179 - 7 - before the learned Single Judge, which reads as under: “WHEREAS, in view of the above observations of Finance Department and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the case has been re-examined at the level of administrative department. Similar cases of up-gradation of posts of Law Officer to higher grade/cadre in various departments viz. Food & Civil Supplies, Panchayati Raj, Excise & Taxation, Animal Husbandry and Socisl Justice & Empowerment (women & Child Development) have been examined and it has been found that in all departments except Social Justice & Empowerment (Women & Child Development) the posts of Law Officer have been upgraded to Senior Law Officer/Deputy Director (Legal) after rendering service of more than 08 years. In Food & Civil Supplies, the post of Law Officer has been upgraded after rendering service of about 18 years, in Panchayati Raj and Excise & Taxation Department after 17 years, in another case of Excise & Taxation Department after 08 years, in Animal Husbandry Department after 19 years. Whereas, in the Social Justice & Empowerment (Women & Child Development) Department, the post of Law Officer has been upgraded as Senior Law Officer after rendering a service of only 01 year and 09 months, however, the total service length of the incumbent was 19 years. WHEREAS, after taking into consideration the above cases of various Departments and observations of the Finance Department, the case of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Law Officer nowhere found comparative/equivalent to the other Departments cases. THEREFORE, after examination of all relevant instructions, observations of the Finance Department and merit of the case, the undersigned being competent authority is of the considered view to let the incumbent viz. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Law Officer to serve for some more years on the same post. Hence, the proposal of the Director of Industries dated 03.09.2022 for up-gradation of the post of Law Officer to the post of Senior Law Officer/Assistant Director/Deputy Director (Legal) as a measure personal to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Law Officer, is hereby considered and rejected.” 8. Keeping in view the above, we are of the 2025:HHC:21179 - 8 - considered opinion that having granted benefit to at least said two Law Officers of the State, as such, the State cannot justify the impugned order for rejecting the case of the writ petitioner in similar circumstances. The reasoning that the benefit could be given after some time and he could serve for some more years for the same post, prevailed with respondent No.1 for denying the relief and noticed the purpose is to ensure that there is no stagnation. The State itself having issued necessary instructions are duly bound by it. In such circumstances, the reasoning which weighed with the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity which would warrant us to take a different view and interfere with the same. Resultantly, in view of the above observation the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July, 02 2025 [himani/Shivender]