2026:HHC:30051 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 424 of 2026 Decided on: 20.07.2026 Yashpal Sharma ......Appellant Versus State of H.P and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP No.16309 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 260 days’ in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CMP(M) No.1067 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 66 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2-2026:HHC:30051 LPA No.424 of 2026 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.6696 of 2025, titled as Yashpal Sharma versus State of H.P & Anr. on 24.04.2025, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to promote him to the post of Centre Head Teacher w.e.f due date with all consequential benefits was dismissed. 2. It came to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was filed after one year of superannuation, which was on 29.06.2024 and the case for consideration for promotion to the said post was since the year 2019. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had already superannuated and had not made any efforts to seek appropriate remedy during the period of service, the relief, as sought, was thus with retrospective effect and could not be justified and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 3. Learned Single Judge had relied upon two basic judgments in cases Civil Appeal No.13187 of 2024 Government of West Bengal & Ors vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors decided on 27.11.2024 and Union of India vs N.C. Murali (2017) 13 SCC 575 wherein, it had been held that there is only right to be considered for promotion and there is no fundamental -3-2026:HHC:30051 right to the promotion itself and resultantly, he was denied the relief as sought. 4. We have gone through the file, as such and found that there is no specific averment regarding no promotion being made in the writ petition and even any representation was not made for seeking the said relief. Thus apparently, though the claim is that the vacancies were available in the year 2019 but the allegtion is that only due to Code of Conduct on account of elections, the petitioner had been deprived of his legal and legitimate right of promotion and just after two months of his retirement, the list of such promotees has been issued vide office order dated 27.08. 2024. 5. We are of the considered opinion that the Code of Conduct was only at the subsequent point of time i.e prior to the retirement and before that, no efforts, as such, had been made by the petitioner to seek any redressal, as such. The respondent could have been directed for filling up the posts but no representation had been filed by the appellant and he had slept over his right of consideration, which action could not be taken after passing of the subsequent promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and that is too, after his retirement. 6. In such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that -4-2026:HHC:30051 the petitioner not having agitated for his grievances from the year 2019 till 2024 i.e. the period of five years, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity in letter and spirit. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice July 20, 2026 (Bipin Chander Negi) (meera) Judge