1 2025:HHC:38960 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.152 of 2022 Decided on: 12 th November, 2025 __________________________________________________ Union of India and others ...Appellants Versus Hira Singh and others. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 is ex-parte vide order dated 17.07.2024 Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The appellants by way of the present appeal have assailed the judgment dated 24.07.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.10362 of 2012 titled Hira Singh and others vs. Union of India and others, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners/respondents has been allowed and the order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the competent authority to deny 2nd financial upgradation to the respondents has been quashed and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 set aside and the appellants were directed to promote the respondents as Head Constables with effect from 2002 with all consequential benefits. 2. The appellants have challenged the judgment firstly; on the ground that the writ petition preferred by the respondents was barred by delay and laches, since they had raked up the issue with respect to their seniority after a lapse of 10 years, secondly; the findings given by the learned Single Judge that the instructions cannot override the provisions of rules are wrong and thirdly; the appointment/promotion in GD Cadre up to the rank of Head Constable was required to be maintained at unit level, as recruitment of SSB Organization was different from those of CRPF. It is further contended that there is no relevance of promotion of juniors of other units over the respondents, as their seniority was being maintained separately at their respective unit level. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that since it is not in dispute that the seniority of the respondents and other persons was required to be determined for the entire Battalion under Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules and not unit wise as was done by the appellants, the writ petition preferred by the respondents was rightly allowed. Further, it has 3 been contended that the learned Single Judge after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has rightly returned the findings that the executive instructions could make a provision only with regard to a matter which was not covered by the Rules and such instructions could not override any provisions of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 5. The first plea raised by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (Senior Advocate) that the petition was barred by delay and laches cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the said plea was never raised before the writ Court while filing the reply to the writ petition. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the authorities denying the relief to the respondents to the effect that they are not eligible for the 2nd financial up-gradation under the A.C.P. Scheme was challenged by way of writ petition, which was instituted on 03.12.2012 and once the specific plea was not taken in the reply, the appellants had waived off the said right and the said plea cannot be raised in the present appeal. 6. So far the second plea raised by the appellants that the findings given by the learned Single Judge that the instructions 4 cannot override the provisions of Rules are wrong, deserves to be rejected, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Shamsher Jang Shukla, AIR 1972 SC 1546, wherein it has been held that the Government cannot amend the statutory rules by issuing the instructions. The learned Single Judge has rejected the plea of the appellants and has given categorical findings that the counting of the seniority of the respondents cannot be different from those of Narain Chand and Jagdish Ram, on the basis of the instructions which otherwise are against the statutory rules. The third submission regarding maintaining of the seniority in GD Cadre up to the rank of Head Constable at unit level as recruitment of SSB Organization was different from those of CRPF, is considered, the said submission deserves rejection, in view of the fact that seniority has to be maintained on Battalion-wise, as was envisaged under the rules. 7. Perusal of the written statement would go on to show that the appellants have admitted that the SSB Organization was being governed by the CRPF Act and Rules before enactment of SSB Act, 2007 and Rules 2009. It is also admitted that there were specific cadre rules on service matters including promotion Rules. Before intermixing of the SSB Units, the Seniority of Constable (GD), LNK (GD) and NK (GD) was being maintained at Battalion 5 level. Once, the appellants themselves have admitted that the seniority of Constable (GD), LNK (GD) and NK (GD) was being maintained at Battalion level, the learned Single Judge has not erred while allowing the writ petition. 8. The learned Single Judge has succinctly dealt with all the above issues and held that the appellants have counted the seniority of the respondents in a manner different from those namely Narain Chand and Jagdish Ram, mainly on the basis of instructions as relied by the appellants which are contrary to the statutory rules. The judgment under challenge is based on law and thus the findings returned by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order to costs. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) Chief Justice Judge 12 th November, 2025 (ankit)