2026:HHC:22575 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 832 of 2025 Decided on : 15.06.2026 Subhkaran and others …Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral ) Consideration is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4479 of 2019, titled Subhkaran and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 05.12.2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellants was dismissed, wherein they had sought absorption against the post of Clerk w.e.f. 20.01.2011, the date when they were sent on secondment basis to the Education Department. 2. In alternative, the prayer was for absorption in the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:22575 Education Department w.e.f. 08.05.2013, when the process was initiated, with all consequential benefits and give increment, seniority and other benefits w.e.f. 10.10.2017 and 06.09.2018, since lien remained with their parent department i.e. HIMURJA. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the acceptance of absorption was on 10.10.2017 prospectively and it had been accepted without any protest. The petition was filed after two years from the date of absorption i.e. in the year 2019 and thus, the petitioners were not aggrieved by the said action of the respondents and the filing of the writ petition was just an afterthought. 4. It was, accordingly, noticed by the learned Single Judge that the consent having been taken from the petitioners in the year 2013 for their absorption in the Education Department, did not confer any indefeasible right upon the petitioners to be absorbed either from that date when they were sent on secondment basis or from the date when the secondment was sought. Having accepted the absorption with effect from 10.10.2017 and not getting repatriated to their parent department and having approached the writ Court after two years from the date of absorption, could not be justified. 5. We have gone through the pleadings and find that there was a stand of the State in the reply as such that there 3 2026:HHC:22575 were reasons why the absorption had been delayed. It was specifically mentioned that there were 154 employees of surplus staff of Corporation-Board in Education Department, which had been brought against the vacant posts of Clerk initially for one year from the date of their joining in Education Department in their own pay/pay scales purely on secondment basis in relaxation of R&P Rules. 6. Policy of Absorption is dated 11.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) and, therefore, the first relief which is sought that it should be from the date of the posting as such on 20.01.2011, cannot be granted, as the said Policy of Absorption was only subsequently incorporated. 7. Learned Single Judge was right in holding out that merely by giving their consent, does not confer any indefeasible right upon the petitioners for absorption. The State has clarified that while being absorbed vide orders dated 10.10.2017 and 06.09.2018, in pursuance of the option taken, 30 officials were opted for permanent absorption in Education Department, 4 officials opted not to absorb and 2 officials sought clarification regarding the absorption, particulars of 5 officials were not received and the State thus had taken further approval for permanent absorption and sought extension for secondment period on year to year basis. The Government had granted the 4 2026:HHC:22575 approval only on 11.09.2017 and thereafter, affirmative action was to be taken. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioners have also chosen not to approach any Court as such, after their consents having been taken in 2013 and the matter having been pending for various reasons. 9. In the absence of any indefeasible right as such, we are of the considered opinion that the view, which has been taken by learned Single Judge, does not require interference, as absorption has to be done on various exigencies. Once the State was in the process of taking various consents and the said process has to be done by permanent absorption of surplus staff deployed and the same has to be done against the vacant posts, which would clear from the order of absorption dated 10.10.2017, that the absorption of the petitioners was from various categories i.e. Motivators, Junior Assistants, Senior Assistants and Clerks, at different stations. 10. Thus, it is a necessary exercise as such done by the State, which has to follow the Policy as such and keep in mind the option given and the availability of vacant posts and delay, if any, as such, have not been followed up by the petitioners and, therefore, having once accepted the absorption, the claim as such for claiming absorption from an earlier date, could not as 5 2026:HHC:22575 such arise, as it was an exercise which has to be done by both the lending organization and the borrowing organization and the employee concerned. 11. Having acquiescenced in the process of absorption from the year 2013, when the consents were taken, till the final order was passed in the year 2017, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by learned Single Judge as such, does not suffer from any infirmity, which warrants interference. Perusal of the absorption form would also go on to show that consents of the concerned officials had been taken keeping in view the institution, pay scales and posts where they were working on and it was an exercise that the State has to conclude, after taking all the inputs. 12. It is also brought to our notice that as per Clause -1 of the Policy of Absorption, the absorption was to be done on secondment basis on identical pay scale or the posts. The absorption has been done as Clerks and apparently many of the petitioners were Motivators and, therefore, there was also a relaxation of the said condition of the Policy of Absorption, which would also be clear from the reply filed by the State that the same has been done in relaxation of Condition No. 1 of the letter dated 11.05.2012. Thus, the blanket claim as such of the absorption from the date when they initially joined or from the date when 6 2026:HHC:22575 they gave their consent, could not be granted. 13. The present appeal, thus being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 15, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)