IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13582/2026 Decided on: 30.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mohal Lal Verma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shubham Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard & considered the case file. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 18.04.1984 and further promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger on 16.10.2008. On 06.07.2017, meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened for considering the cases of eligible officers for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer. Petitioner's case was also considered, but recommendations of the DPC were kept in sealed cover. This was due to the registration of FIR No. 40 of 2009 on 13.12.2009 under Sections 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 40 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practice, Act 1983 (HPPSCP). Criminal trial proceeded against the petitioner and other co-accused. During the interregnum, the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2021 as Deputy Ranger. Learned Trial Court, i.e. the Court of the Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, acquitted the petitioner of all criminal charges on 29.08.2023. The petitioner represented to the respondents for opening the sealed cover. Not getting any response from the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 04.08.2026 seeking following substantive reliefs: - “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations/findings of the Departmental Promotion Committee pertaining to the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer, which was kept in a sealed cover on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, and in the event the petitioner is found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee, to grant him promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer with from 06.07.2017, i.e. the date on which his immediate juniors/batch- mates were promoted; and (ii) Direct the respondents to grant the petitioner all consequential service and pensionary benefits flowing from such promotion, including re-fixation of pay, revision of pension, gratuity and all other retiral benefits, along with arrears lawfully admissible under the applicable Rules; or.” 3. Vide order dated 07.08.2026 passed in this writ petition, the respondents were directed to place on record instructions as to the impediment in opening the sealed cover, in light of the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal trial by the competent court. Instructions have been placed on record on behalf of the respondents. In these instructions dated 27.08.2026, from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HOFF), Himachal Pradesh, the sole reason for not opening the sealed cover has been attributed to the pendency of an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. As per the instructions, Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2024 is presently pending adjudication in this Court against the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court vide judgment of acquittal dated 29.08.2023. 4. The petitioner has already placed on record a copy of order dated 20.05.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 3208/2023 in the afore-referred criminal appeal preferred by the State. In terms of the said order, the appeal has been admitted, however, there is no stay against the judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the petitioner was acquitted. In the given factual decision, the ratio of law summed up in Ashok Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others2, gets attracted, wherein, after referring to several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and of different Hon’ble High Courts, it was held by the Division Bench that mere pendency of an appeal against judgment of acquittal cannot be made the basis for withholding the service benefits, which were withheld prior to acquittal. Relevant observations from the decision are as under: - “….merely on the plea that an appeal [Criminal Appeal No. 4084 of 2013] against acquittal is pending before the High Court cannot be the basis for depriving the petitioner of service benefits, for the reasons, firstly, mere pendency of appeal against acquittal cannot be regarded as a continuation of a trial, when, the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence in favor of the petitioner and secondly, in case an appeal against acquittal is to treated as continuation of the criminal proceedings, then, there would be no end to the litigation; and thirdly, the petitioner who stands acquitted honorably, shall not get legal entitlements including service benefits which accrue to him till the appeals were concluded and fourthly, once acquittal leads to affirmation of innocence of accused then, it would be unfair, unjust and unreasonable to deny the legal entitlements- service benefits due to mere pendency of criminal proceedings /appeal, if any and fifthly, the pendency of criminal appeal cannot be permitted to be the reason for denying admissible service benefits on acquittal, when no departmental proceedings were initiated or were pending in this case; and sixthly, in the event of reversal of acquittal, in pending appeal leading to conviction, the State Authorities are free to take action against an employee or a pensioner, by resorting to Rule 2 CWPOA No. 7001/2020 decided on 28.05.2025 19 of CCS [CCA Rules] or by taking recourse to such other action under the aforesaid Service Rule. Likewise, even in case of a pensioner, the State Authorities are not powerless and upon conviction the State Authorities are at liberty to proceed under Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules by withdrawing or withholding the Pension or Gratuity or both in part or in full, as the case may be….” In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the DPC convened on 06.07.2017 qua the petitioner and take the same to their logical conclusion. In case, based upon the recommendations of the DPC, the petitioner is found entitled to promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer, he be promoted as such from the due date with all consequential benefits. This entire exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 30th September, 2026 Judge rohit