2026:HHC:28980-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5082 of 2020 Decided on: 14.07.2026 Parkash Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Respondents No. 5 & 8(a) to 8(c) already ex-parte. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “(i) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to review the order dated 2.5.2016 and promote the petitioner to the post of Naib Tehsildar from the date his juniors were considered and promoted i.e. prior to 30.04.2014 and the petitioner may also be held entitled for all consequential benefits which may flow 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28980-DB in his favour after being promoted prior to 30 th April, 2014 as Naib Tehsildar.” 2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed as Casual Patwari in the year 1979 and was posted in Settlement, Naib Tehsildar Circle, Rohru. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee, he was appointed as regular Patwari, vide office order dated 5th February, 1983 w.e.f. 01.02.1983. The petitioner was promoted as Kanungo, vide office order dated 6th July, 2009. Since there was a dispute of seniority of Patwaris of Settlement Department, Shimla and Kangra Divisions, the petitioner along with other persons had filed CWP No. 295 of 2001, titled, Karan Singh and others Vs. State of H.P. and others (petitioner No.3), which came to be disposed of on 06.01.2010, wherein the seniority was quashed and a direction was given to the respondents that the persons, who had already qualified the patwar circle examination, will rank en bloc ‘senior’ to the candidates, who had not qualified the patwar circle examination but were appointed in relaxation of the Rules and those candidates, who had not qualified the patwar circle examination; the seniority shall be determined on the basis of merit prepared by the Committee, which made the appointment and in case no merit was prepared, then the elder in age will be treated as senior. The date of passing of the patwar examination will have no relevance to fixation 3 2026:HHC:28980-DB of the seniority and thus directed the respondents to re-cast the seniority. After the judgment passed by this Court, the final seniority list was issued on 23.07.2010 (Annexure P-4) and thereafter an office order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) was passed in, which the petitioner was shown to have been promoted to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 16.01.2008 and his name figures at Sr. No. 141 and respondent No.7 in the petition was shown to have been promoted w.e.f. 02.07.2009. Thereafter, the final seniority list was issued on 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-6) of District Shimla and Kangra up to 31.07.2009 and in this list, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 230 and respondent No.7 at Sr. No. 266. 3. It has been averred that the next promotional post from the post of Kanungo is Naib Tehsildar and as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, Kanungo, having three years of regular service and being passed departmental examination is eligible to be promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar. The petitioner had passed the departmental examination, but was exempted from passing the examination in Hindi in view of the fact that he had already passed the said test while taking his matriculation examination. The petitioner was eligible for being considered to be promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar, on completion of three years of regular service as Kanungo, as such, on 17.01.2011. However, his 4 2026:HHC:28980-DB candidature was not considered and he was superannuated from service as Kanungo on 30.04.2014. After his retirement, the DPC for promotion was convened to the posts of Naib Tehsildar and persons junior to him, who had also retired in the year 2015 were considered and promoted to the vacancies of the year, 2014 as per Notification dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure P-9). 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that he was senior to the private respondents, but his candidature was not considered for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar for the vacancy of year 2014 and further out of four candidates, who were promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar, two persons were junior to him. It has further been averred that even as per the appointment order dated 05.02.1983 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was figured at Sr. No. 28, whereas respondent No.7 was figured at Sr. No. 38. The petitioner after coming to know about the fact that the persons junior to him have been promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar, moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 21.03.2017 to provide him the information with respect to the promotion of respondent No.7 and Pritam Chand who was arrayed as respondent No.8 and was later on substituted by his LRs. The said information was supplied to him vide letter dated 18.04.2017, 5 2026:HHC:28980-DB whereby the petitioner came to know about the Notification dated 02.05.2016. 5. The precise grouse of the petitioner in the petition is that once the petitioner was eligible and the posts of Naib Tehsildar were vacant in the year 2014, which was to be filled up on merit- cum-seniority basis and he being in the zone of consideration, more especially when his juniors were promoted to the posts of Naib Tehsildar for the vacancies of the year 2014, his name ought to have been recommended and since, his claim has been ignored only for the reason that he was retired, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, more particularly when for the vacancies of the year 2015, the persons, who had retired, have been recommended in the year 2016, vide Notification dated 02.05.2016. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by Notification dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure P-9) has approached this Court, inter alia, on the ground that the action on the part of the respondent-State in not promoting him is arbitrary, discriminatory and his fundamental right has been infringed by not considered him for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar. No doubt, it is settled law that the promotion is not a fundamental right, but the petitioner had a right of consideration and once he was eligible and in the zone of consideration, he ought to have been considered and promoted to 6 2026:HHC:28980-DB the post of Naib Tehsildar against the vacancy of 2014, when juniors to him have been promoted with all consequential benefits. 7. Respondents No.1 to 4 filed reply to the petition and averred that the claim put-forth by the petitioner that particulars of his junior i.e. respondent No.7 were sent for the promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar, is wrong and misleading. As per order No. 2531 dated 09.09.2014 of the Settlement Officer Kangra Division, respondent No.7 was placed in the old seniority list of Kanungo upto 31.07.2009 at Sr. No.218/1 and in the year 2014, the particulars of respondent No.7 Settlement Kanungo of Kangra Division were sent to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra vide his office letter No. 3793, dated 04.12.2014 along with other ten eligible Kanungo. The petitioner had retired on 30.04.2014 and, therefore, his particulars were not forwarded after his superannuation. It has further been averred that as per Notification dated 02.05.2016, in the year 2014, no Kanungo junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Naib Tehsildar. However, in the year 2015, one Sh. Shyam Lal, Kanungo who was junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Naib Tehsildar. Since the petitioner had already retired on 30.4.2014, he could not be promoted in the year 2015. 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and controverted the averments made therein. 7 2026:HHC:28980-DB 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once as per the Notification dated 02.05.2016, respondent No.7, who was junior to him has been promoted against the vacancy of 2014, the name of the petitioner ought to have been considered even if he stood retired on 30.04.2014 for the reason that in the subsequent year of 2015, the persons namely S/Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Jagat Sigh Negi, who had retired from service on 31.03.2015, 31.10.2015 respectively were promoted to the posts of Naib Tehsildar (Class-I) in the pay band of Rs. 10,300/-34,800/- + 4800 GP in Kangra Division on regular basis against year-wise vacancies as per Notification dated 02.05.2016. 11. The respondents while filing reply to the petition have also taken the stand that firstly respondent No.7 though was junior, but his seniority was subsequently altered and, therefore, his claim was considered for promotion for the vacancy for the year 2014-15 and the petitioner being junior to him, his claim was not considered, since he had retired on 30.04.2014. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that after the decision given by this Court in Karan Singh’ s case (supra), the respondents had issued the final seniority list, in which the petitioner was shown senior to respondent 8 2026:HHC:28980-DB Pritam Chand, respondent No.8, which is evident from a perusal of Annexure P-4, in which the petitioner is at Sr. No.508, whereas respondent No.8 figures at Sr. No.569, has also been promoted vide Notification dated 02.05.2016 for the vacancy of the year 2014. After issuing seniority list on 23.07.2010, an office order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) was passed assigning dates of the promotion to the posts of Kanungo, in which the petitioner was shown to have been promoted as Kanungo w.e.f. 16.01.2008 and respondent No.7 w.e.f. 02.07.2009 and their names figures at Sr. No. 141 and 179 respectively. 12. It is not the case of respondents that vacancy for the year 2014 was not available with them and the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar. The plea which has been taken by the respondents is only that since the petitioner had retired on 30.04.2014 and further seniority of respondent No.7 was subsequently rectified, his name could not be considered for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar. However, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that once the respondents-State had issued the Notification on 02.05.2016 to promote the Naib Tehsildars from the feeding category of the Kanungo and the petitioner was shown senior and appointed as Kanungo earlier to respondent No.7 and the persons who had 9 2026:HHC:28980-DB retired have also been considered for the vacancies of the year 2015, the petitioner who was senior to respondent No.7, ought to have also been considered and promoted earlier to him. The office order dated 07.10.2010 was passed in sequel to the directions given by this Court in the petition instituted by the petitioner and other persons, the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion irrespective of the fact that he had retired on 30.04.2014. 13. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that once other persons, who had retired in the year 2015 have also been promoted, the petitioner being similarly situate cannot be treated differently and action on the part of the respondent-State to not promote him is arbitrary, discriminatory as well as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner, who stood retired on 30.04.2014 has rightly not been considered for the reason that firstly as per the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer, Kangra Division at Dharamshala (Annexure R-1), respondent No.7 was assigned the seniority at Sr. No. 218 and due to that reason his candidature was considered for the vacancy for the year 2014 and since the petitioner had already retired, his case could not be considered. The said office order cannot be given any license to the 10 2026:HHC:28980-DB respondent-State to ignore the claim of the petitioner, firstly on the ground that the petitioner had retired on 30.04.2014 and there was no question of passing order altering his seniority, after his retirement i.e. on 09.09.2014 and this all was done to ignore the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar. Had there been no vacancy available for the year 2014 of Naib Tehsildar, the petitioner would not have staked his claim. No doubt, the person cannot be considered for promotion after his retirement, but if the person junior to him is considered and promoted, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of promotion for the reason that he stood retired on 30.04.2014. This action on the part of the respondent-State has caused grave injustice to the petitioner, who has been denied promotion only after assigning seniority to respondent No.7 above to him, that too, after his retirement and this action on the part of the respondent-State is arbitrary and discriminatory. In case of other employees, who had got retired in the year 2015 as mentioned above, their claims have been considered for the vacancies of the year 2015 while passing the orders on 02.05.2016. The respondent-State being model employer has to treat its employees equally. Since respondent No.7 has now retired from service, his promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar shall not be disturbed. However, in case there was no vacancy 11 2026:HHC:28980-DB available for the year 2014, the respondents-State shall create a supernumerary post to promote the petitioner. 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Naib Tehsildar for the vacancy of 2014. In case there was no vacancy available for the year 2014, the respondent-State shall create a supernumerary post to promote him for the vacancy of 2014 and grant him all consequential benefits, except the monetary benefits, which shall be paid to him from the date of filing of the petition. In case the arrears on account of promotion are not paid to the petitioner, within three months from today, the respondent- State shall pay interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum from today. No order as to costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 14th July, 2026 (Guleria)