2025:HHC:21404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 6145 and 6140 of 2024 Reserved on: June 25, 2025 Decided on: July 7, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 6145 of 2024 Pawan Sharma ... Petitioner Versus State of HP and another …....Respondents 2. CWP No. 6140 of 2024 Prem Chand ... Petitioner Versus State of HP and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner(s) Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. , Since facts as well as reliefs sought for in both these petitions are similar, they were tagged on 17.3.2025 and were being heard together, same are being disposed of vide this common order. CWP No. 6145 of 2024 2. Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in 1978. Petitioner applied for the post of Deputy Ranger under direct quota, but was not appointed, for which he filed OA No. 108/1997, which was allowed on 21.6.2001, with the direction to give him appointment from the date, one Hukam Singh was 2025:HHC:21404 - 2 - appointed. State filed CWP No. 1428 of 2002 against order dated 21.6.2001, which was dismissed on 18.12.2008, Review Petition No. 442/2009 filed by State, in the matter again met the same fate on 5.5.2011. When petitioner was not given appointment he had to file COPC No. 70 of 2009, in which direction was given on 5.5.2011 to implement order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. State filed SLP(C) No. 14771 of 2011, which was dismissed on 19.9.2011. After fighting long battle, ultimately, the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Ranger with effect from 28.2.1979, vide office order dated 18.11.2011. 3. Subsequent to appointment as Deputy Ranger, the petitioner was assigned seniority as Deputy Ranger at Seniority No. 315, above one Nikka Ram, but before he could get the benefit of promotion to the next post, he superannuated from service on 31.12.2011. 4. However, on 1.3.2012, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to hold a review DPC and petitioner was considered for promotion as Range Forest Officer vide order dated 24.4.2012 and petitioner was promoted as such, in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 with effect from 1.10.1996, when his junior Nikka Ram was promoted on the said post. Again petitioner filed OA No. 3365 of 2015, since benefits of promotion were not given to the petitioner, which was allowed on 9.7.2019 by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, directing respondent-State to grant actual benefits to the petitioner from the date of promotion on notional basis till retirement. Petitioner claims that after 2025:HHC:21404 - 3 - 2012 till 2022, he kept on representing to the respondent-State and as of now, except leave encashment, all benefits have been received by him. 5. Petitioner claims that after being promoted as Range Forest Officer, he was entitled for further promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and when he came to know that some of his juniors had been promoted to said post, he made representation dated 25.5.2019. 6. Vide Notification dated 8.3.2002, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Forests, notified the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, Himachal Pradesh Forest Service, Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2002. Clause 10 provides for 75% posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests to be filled up by way of promotion, clause 11 prescribes seven years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc service rendered upto 31.3.1998, as eligibility criteria for promotees and Rule-17 provides that every member of the service shall pass departmental examination as prescribed in the Departmental Examination Rules, 1997. 7. Now, reverting back to petitioner’s case, after being appointed as Deputy Ragner with effect from 28.2.1979 and promoted as Range Forest Officer with effect from 1.10.1996, he completed seven years requisite service notionally on 30.9.2003 and thus, as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2002, became entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, but since he was embroiled in litigation, which took considerable time, he was not promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests. However, persons, 2025:HHC:21404 - 4 - who were junior to petitioner in the seniority list one being Shri Om Pal Sharma, were promoted to the higher post. Petitioner further claims that persons namely Birbal Vinayak, Nand Lal, T.C. Kaundal and K.R. Kaundal, were promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests, without passing Departmental Examination. Petitioner claims that Anant Ram Verma, Roshan Lal, Kanshi Ram, Salig Ram Badiyala, Jarnail Singh, Mastan Singh and Kahan Singh, who were matriculates were also promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests. Some persons who were FSC or B.Sc.-1 pass were also promoted as such. Petitioner though filed several representations to the respondents to grant him benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, but since same were not considered, petitioner approached this Court, by way of present petition, seeking following main reliefs: “(a) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests as per Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (HPFS) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2002, from due date i.e. 2003, when the petitioner completed 7 years service in the cadre of Range Forest Officer or from the date, his immediate juniors were promoted to the said post, alongwith all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears, seniority, pension etc. (b) Direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the corresponding pay scale admissible to the Assistant Conservator of Forests and consequently re-fix all the pensionary and other retiral benefits due and admissible to the petitioner in the said pay scale.” CWP No. 6140 of 2024 8. Facts of this case are exactly similar to the case of petitioner in CWP No. 6145 of 2024 and as such, need no recital here, except that petitioner 2025:HHC:21404 - 5 - herein retired on 31.12.2011. Since replies in both the cases are also same, reply filed in CWP No. 6145 of 2024 is being noted below. The relief claimed in this petition is also same and similar, as in CWP No. 6145 of 2024, therefore, recital of same can be dispensed with. 9. Reply filed by respondent State reveals that Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2002 were amended vide Notification dated 22.2.2005, whereby educational qualification, which was not applicable in case of promotees as per 2002 rules, was prescribed as Bachelor’s Degree and passing of departmental examination and since the petitioner neither was a graduate nor passed departmental examination as per 2005 rules, he was not eligible for promotion. Another ground has been taken of delay and laches. As per respondents, Range Forest Officers of 1996-97 batches were promoted in September, 2012. In reply to CWP No. 6145 of 2024, respondents stated that name of petitioner could not be sent for promotion as ACF (HPFS), as he had retired and in reply to CWP No. 6140 of 2024, respondents claim that name of petitioner was included in the proposal for promotion to the post of HPFS, but was shown in-eligible, as he had not passed Departmental examination. 10. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is claimed that petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests was to be governed by 2002 rules and not 2006 rules. Besides this, petitioner has moved CMP No. 14120 of 2024, for placing on record documents, to show that some persons were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, without passing departmental examination. 2025:HHC:21404 - 6 - 11. Following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners’ promotion from the post of Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests would be governed by 2002 rules or 2006 rules, which prescribed higher educational qualification of bachelor’s degree? (b) In case the petitioners are to be promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests, whether such promotion will be granted from October, 2003, when they completed seven years notional service as Range Forest Officer as per rules of 2002 or from the date when vacancy arose and his immediate junior was promoted? (c) Whether the claim of the petitioners, who remained embroiled in litigation till 2019 and filed repeated representations till 2022-23, can be said to be barred by delay and laches? (d) Whether the petitioners can be faulted with, for not qualifying the departmental examination, despite the fact that they got promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer in 2012, when Departmental Examinations Rules provides that in case of a class I officer, there is no requirement of passing Departmental Examination, after he crosses age of 55 years? 12. So far Point Nos. (a) and (b) are concerned, it transpires from record and pleadings of parties, petitioners acquired eligibility in October, 2003. It also transpires from the documents adduced on record by petitioners that posts of ACF under General category were available in 2003. Record further reveals that juniors of the petitioners have been promoted to the post of ACF, without qualifying departmental examinations and without having the educational qualification of graduation. Therefore, as per settled legal position, 2025:HHC:21404 - 7 - the rules that were occupying the field on the date when vacancy arose or existed would apply. In the case of petitioners, they became eligible retrospectively on 1.10.2003 and on that day, as many as 08 vacancies of general category existed in the department as is clear from memorandum for consideration of DPC meeting for promotion of eligible Forest Rangers to the post of HPFS, which has been signed by the Additional Secretary (Forests) on 17.9.2004. Aforesaid document has been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioners on the date of argument, which is taken on record. Otherwise same is a document supplied under Right to Information Act, 2005, as such, same can be taken into consideration by this Court. This issue thus, goes in favour of the petitioners. 13. Otherwise also, it is a settled position of law that the rules governing recruitment and promotion, which are in force on the date when the vacancy arises or when the candidate becomes eligible, govern the process of appointment or promotion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., (1983) 3 SCC 284, categorically held that “the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules.” This principle has been reiterated in State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty, (2021) 4 SCC 714, wherein the Hon’ble Court held that “the applicable rules are those which were in force on the date of occurrence of the vacancy.” In the present case, the petitioner had completed all requisite eligibility conditions as per the rules then in force (as in October, 2003), and the vacancy had arisen prior to any 2025:HHC:21404 - 8 - subsequent amendment i.e. 2006; therefore, the petitioners’ right to consideration must be judged in light of the rules as they existed at the relevant time. Denial of such consideration under amended or altered norms would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. So far question of delay and laches is concerned, it would be necessary to delve into the chequered history of the case. Petitioners started litigating with the Department since 1997, when they filed OA No.108 of 1997 and OA No.117 of 1997 and thereafter they kept on litigating with Department till 2019, when OA No. 3655 of 2015 and OA No. 3521 of 2015 were decided. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that on one hand, in case of petitioners, the Department chose to assail every orders passed in their favour till Hon'ble Apex Court and in case of Hukam Singh, who also got appointment as Deputy Ranger, after filing OA No. 978 of 2002 (decided on 27.5.2008), Department decided not to lay challenge to order passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Due to the acts of the respondents in filing writ petition, review petition and SLP, due relief granted to the petitioners in 2001 could not be availed by them and thereafter, when they were promoted as Range Forest Officers, they were not granted full benefits, which again compelled the petitioners to file two separate Original Applications in 2015, which were decided in 2019 and thereafter also, final benefits were released in 2022/2024. Though, name of petitioner Pawan Sharma at one point of time was included in proposal for promotion, but same was not considered on the ground of eligibility and name of petitioner Prem Chand was not considered as 2025:HHC:21404 - 9 - he had retired by that time. Furthermore, petitioners have since retired in 2011/2015 and considering pendency of Original Applications filed in 2015 and repeated representations filed by him, especially the fact that earlier appointment as Deputy Ranger and promotion as Range Forest Officer was also conferred upon the petitioners, after litigating for decades, rightful claim of the petitioners cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches. Otherwise also, delay and laches cannot be a bar for the Court to do substantial justice. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that delay and laches cannot be an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the delay is satisfactorily explained and the cause of action is genuine. In Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598, the Hon’ble Court observed that “mere delay or laches should not defeat the claims of a citizen if the claim is otherwise just and lawful.” Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore case held as under: “The rule which says that the Court may not inquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is not to physical 2025:HHC:21404 - 10 - running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches.” 16. Similarly, in B.S. Sheshagiri v. State of Karnataka, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 604, it was held that courts ought to adopt a liberal approach where the cause involves substantial justice, and the delay is not deliberate or malafide. In the present case, the petitioner has explained the reasons for the delay with bona fide grounds, and as such, the same ought not to come in the way of securing justice. Denial of relief solely on the ground of delay would amount to perpetuating injustice. 17. Next issue is with regard to the objection of the respondent-State that the petitioners could not be considered for promotion as they had not passed Departmental Examinations. Annexure P-9, annexed with CMP No. 14120 of 2025 shows that there are persons, who did not pass departmental examination but were promoted to HPFS, one of whom is O.C. Sharma, who was promoted on 24.6.2006 (with effect from 22.2.2003) and there are several other persons, who were promoted without passing Departmental Examinations. Otherwise, perusal of Notification dated 13.3.1997, whereby Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules, 1997 came to be notified, shows that Clause 23, “Exemption Clause” provides for exemption from passing Departmental Examination to candidates, who belong to Class I cadre, after the age of 55 years and to non-gazetted promotees, after the age of 50 years. Otherwise also, since petitioners were promoted as Range Forest 2025:HHC:21404 - 11 - Officers in 2012, not much time was left with them to prepare for and qualify departmental examinations. 18. Had the petitioners been granted all the service benefits in time, they would certainly have been considered for promotion to the post of ACF (HPFS) against the vacancies that were available in 2003 and 2004 but on account of the fact that petitioners kept on litigating with the respondents till 2019, by which time, they had superannuated they were not granted the benefit of promotion. 19. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, both the petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (HPFS) from the year 2003, when they completed seven years service as Range Forest Officer and Rules 2002 were in force. Petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears thereof, revision of pension and other retiral benefits. Since petitioners are in their seventies, this Court hopes and trusts that the needful in terms of this order shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months. Both the petitions stand disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 7, 2025 (Vikrant)