NARINDER PAUL SINGH CHAUHAN vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:46676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.8809 of 2026
Reserved on: 04.08.2026
Date of decision: 27.10.2026
Uploaded on: 27.10.2026
Narinder Paul Singh Chauhan. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta,
Advocates.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr. Sushant
Keprate, Additional Advocates General
and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State.
: Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Petitioner, being aggrieved by extension of service
granted to respondent No.4, Narinder Pal Singh, as Engineer-in-
Chief (in short 'ENC') in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works
Department (in short 'HPPWD'), vide notification dated 28.04.2026
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
Yes
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-2-
(Annexure P-6), has filed this petition for quashing and setting aside
High Court of H.P.
the impugned notification dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) and
seeking a direction to the respondents-State/Department to convene
a meeting of the Screening Committee and promote the petitioner to
the post of Engineer-in-Chief from the due date, with the plea that
the impugned extension of service of respondent No. 4 is bad in law,
contrary to the applicable policy and procedure, arbitrary,
discriminatory, unreasonable, irrational, and unsustainable in the
eye of law.
2. Respondent No.1 is the State of Himachal Pradesh
through its Chief Secretary, whereas the State has also been sued
through Secretary (Personnel) as respondent No. 2, and respondent
No. 3 Secretary (Public Works Department).
3. Respondent No. 4 is Narinder Pal Singh in whose favour
extension of service has been granted, whereas petitioner is
Narinder Paul Singh Chauhan.
Plea of Petitioner.
4. Petitioner, after completing the degree of Bachelor of
Engineering (Civil) [in short 'B.E. (Civil)'], has also completed Master
of Engineering (Civil) [in short 'M.E. (Civil)'].
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-3-
5. Petitioner joined the Department as Junior Engineer
High Court of H.P.
(Civil) on his selection in pursuance to the process initiated by the
Department to fill up the said post in accordance with the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short 'R&P Rules'), on his
appointment to the said post on regular basis by joining his duties on
31.08.1992.
6. Petitioner is serving as Chief Engineer, which is a post
in the feeder category for further promotion to the post of Engineer-
in-Chief.
7. On his selection and appointment, the petitioner joined
the Department as Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-I (Gazetted), on
regular basis, on 16.10.1996, and he has completed more than 28
years of service in gazetted rank in the Department.
8. In the year 2009, the petitioner was promoted to the post
of Executive Engineer on 26.11.2009 on ad hoc basis on the basis
of his seniority, meritorious service record, experience and eligibility.
Considering his satisfactory performance with utmost sincerity,
dedication, and efficiency, and on the basis of suitability, his
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was regularized.
9. Vide notification dated 01.05.2018, on the basis of
seniority position, eligibility, experience, and satisfactory service
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-4-
record, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending
High Court of H.P.
Engineer.
10. In the year 2023, vide notification dated 23.01.2023, on
account of seniority position in the cadre of Superintending Engineer,
requisite eligibility, long experience and unblemished service record,
the petitioner was promoted/appointed to the post of Chief Engineer
in HPPWD on regular basis.
11. The next promotional post from the post of Chief
Engineer in the Department is that of Engineer-in-Chief. It is the case
of the petitioner that the said post of Engineer-in-Chief is required to
be filled up strictly in accordance with applicable policy, procedure
and decisions taken by the competent authority from time to time.
12. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief is made on the basis of
recommendations of the Screening Committee after considering
cases of all eligible officers on the basis of merit with due regard to
seniority, service record, experience, and overall suitability, and the
meeting of the Screening Committee is conducted on the same
pattern as adopted for promotion to the post of Additional Director
General of Police/Director General of Police in the Police
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-5-
Department and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests etc. in the
High Court of H.P.
Forest Department.
13. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that for
selection of a suitable incumbent, in the meeting of the Screening
Committee held on 02.11.2002, it was specifically decided that the
fundamental principle of merit with due regard to seniority shall be
the governing criteria for selection to the post of Engineer-in-Chief.
Further that, it was also decided that those Chief Engineers, who
possess at least 28 years of service in Gazetted rank, including five
years’ combined service as Superintending Engineer (Civil) and
Chief Engineer (Civil) on regular and/or ad hoc basis, shall be eligible
for consideration for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief and
an officer is required to possess at least 28 years of service in
Gazetted rank along with five years combined service on the posts
of Superintending Engineer (Civil) and Chief Engineer (Civil),
whether on regular and/or ad hoc basis, for being eligible for
consideration to the post of Engineer-in-Chief.
14. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner fulfils all criteria to be considered for promotion to the post
of Engineer-in-Chief, including the requirement of 28 years of service
in Gazetted rank, completion of requisite 5 years combined service
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-6-
on the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) and Chief Engineer
High Court of H.P.
(Civil), as prescribed under the applicable criteria/policy for
consideration to the post of Engineer-in-Chief.
15. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent
No.4, who was serving as Engineer-in-Chief in the Department, was
to retire on 30.04.2026, and to maintain continuity in the
administration of the Department, the process for
promotion/placement to the post of Engineer-in-Chief was initiated in
or around the month of April, 2026, and during the said process,
Vigilance Clearance Certificate (in short 'VCC') and other necessary
service records/documents were also called for from the field offices
in respect of eligible officers for consideration by the competent
authority/Screening Committee.
16. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is one of the
senior-most officers in the cadre and his name figures at Serial No.3
in the seniority list of Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers, as
applicable, which has not been disputed.
17. It is further case of the petitioner that the incumbent at
Serial No.1 of the seniority list has already been promoted/appointed
to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, whereas the officer at Serial No.2
already stands retired in the month of March, 2026 on attaining the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-7-
age of superannuation, and thereafter, the petitioner is the next
High Court of H.P.
senior-most eligible officer available in the Department for
consideration to the said post.
18. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide
communication dated 07.04.2026, the Government itself has issued
directions to all departments not to grant extension in service, re-
employment, or re-engagement to retired employees/officers after
attaining the age of superannuation. A copy of the communication
dated 07.04.2026 has been annexed as Annexure P-5 with the
petition. The said communication clearly reflects the policy decision
and stand of the Government is that extension in service beyond
superannuation has not to be granted in a routine manner, and only
exceptional cases are to be considered strictly in accordance with
law.
19. During the pendency of the process, initiated for filling
up the anticipated vacancy of post of Engineer-in-Chief, respondent
No.1 issued the impugned Notification dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure
P-6) granting extension in service for a further period of six months
to respondent No.4, whereas respondent No.4 was due to retire from
service on 30.04.2026 on attaining the age of superannuation.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-8-
20. In the aforesaid circumstances, along with submissions
High Court of H.P.
with regard to the academic qualifications and experience etc. of the
petitioner, the present petition has been preferred being aggrieved
by the impugned Notification dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-6)
granting extension of service to respondent No. 4.
21. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated
19.12.2017 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPIL No.201
of 2017 , titled Court on its own motion versus State of Himachal
Pradesh , as well as the judgment dated 01.04.2025 passed by
another Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.231 of 2025 , titled
Vishal Sharma versus State of H.P. , along with CWP No. 475 of
2025 , titled Sanjeev Dhiman versus State of H.P .
22 Information received by the petitioner from the Public
Information Officer-cum-Section Officer, Department of Personnel,
along with communication dated 06.07.2026, has also been placed
on record, which includes the noting portion of the file dealt with in
the Department of Personnel from the initial level up till Hon'ble Chief
Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-9-
Reply of the State.
High Court of H.P.
23. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed
on the affidavit of respondent No.2, Secretary (Personnel), whereas
a separate reply has been filed by respondent No.4 on 04.07.2026.
24. Respondent No.2, in his affidavit, has, in preliminary
submissions, stated as under:-
“ Preliminary Submission:
1. That the replying respondent i.e. Department of
Personnel is the cadre controlling department of the
Engineers-in-Chief and Chief Engineers of Public Works
Department, Himachal Pradesh. The replying respondent
convenes the meeting of the Screening Committee to fill up
the post of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD from time to time on
the basis of proposal furnished by the Administrative
Department (Public Works). The replying respondent had put
up the file to competent authority to convene the meeting of
the Screening Committee for filling up the post of Engineer-
in-Chief, HPPWD, which was likely to fall vacant w.e.f.
01.05.2026, due to retirement of respondent No.4 on
30.04.2026, on attaining the age of superannuation.
2. That, in the meantime, the Additional Principal Private
Secretary-cum Special Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister,
HP Secretariat, Shimla-2, vide U.O. letter No. APPS/2/2026,
dated 28.04.2026 intimated that Hon'ble Chief Minister has
approved to grant extension in service in favour of
respondent No.4. for a period of six months.
3. That Chapter-22 of the Handbook on Personnel
Matters, Vol-II contains the provisions of extension/re-
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-10-
employment. As per these provisions, the overriding
High Court of H.P.
consideration for the grant of extension of service/re-
employment must be clearly in the public interest on the
condition that the retiring officer is of outstanding merit.
4. That the aforesaid U.O. letter received from the
Additional Principal Private Secretary-cum Special Secretary
to Hon'ble Chief Minister, HP Secretariat, Shimla-2 was put
up on file for consideration of the authority and the competent
authority approved extension-in-service in favour of
respondent No. 4, for a period of six months. Accordingly, the
replying respondent vide notification number PER (A-I)B(3)-
26/2021 dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-6 of the CWP) has
issued extension-in-service order in respect of respondent
No. 4, for a period of six months, in the public interest.”
25. In reply on merits, except stating in paragraph 1 that the
petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court in view of the preliminary submissions and referring to the
provisions of Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters,
Volume-II, the respondents have not denied the averments made in
the petition. Rather, in this reply, the pleadings from paragraph 3 to
paragraph 14 of the petition have been admitted, with the assertion
in paragraph 1 that the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court in view of the submissions made in the
preliminary submissions and the reply thereto.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-11-
26. It has been further stated in the reply that the extension
High Court of H.P.
of service of respondent No. 4 vide impugned notification dated
28.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) has been issued with the approval of the
competent authority in public interest with further assertion that
despite instructions dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-5), respondent
No.4 has been granted such extension of service with the approval
of the competent authority in public interest.
27. Learned Advocate General has also placed on record
instructions dated 23.07.2026 received from Principal Secretary
(Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, stating therein
as under:-
"I am directed to refer to your letter No. CWP 8809/2026-
dated 08.07.2026, on the subject cited above and to say that in
order to comply with the observation /directions of the Hon'ble
Court in its order dated 07.07.2026, the matter was taken up with
the Administrative Department i.e. Public Works Department as
the matter regarding creation /upgradation of posts of Chief
Engineers/Engineers-in-Chief falls in the domain of the aforesaid
department.
The AD (Public Works Department), vide letter No. PBW-
A-E (1)-16/2026 dated 23.07.2026 (copy enclosed), has informed
that the matter was placed before the Cabinet on 20.07.2026 and
the Cabinet has approved to impart instruction to Ld. Advocate
General, State of HP that the Government has taken a conscious
decision after due examination of facts for granting extension to
the present incumbent ENC, and therefore any new promotion can
only happen after the expiry of the extension period of Sh. N.P.
Singh and then against the resultant vacancy and to apprise
Hon'ble High Court accordingly.
You are, therefore, requested to apprise the Hon'ble High
Court accordingly."
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-12-
Reply of respondent No. 4
High Court of H.P.
28. Respondent No.4 has filed a separate reply, wherein he
has adopted the reply filed by the respondent-State in its entirety,
but with further submission that he has been granted extension of
six months in service with effect from 01.05.2026 to 31.10.2026 in
relaxation of Rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules (in short 'FR').
29. It has been further stated in reply of respondent No.4
that as propounded in judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in CWPIL
No.26 of 2025 , titled Atul Sharma versus Union of India , once the
Government forms the opinion that extension is in public interest,
then the correctness of such opinion cannot normally be challenged
before the Courts. The Court will intervene only when such decision
is arbitrary, irrational, and unconstitutional.
30. It has been stated in reply of respondent No.4 that in
administrative matters, until the decision is clearly violative of some
statute or is shockingly arbitrary, the Court should therefore
ordinarily defer the judgment to the policy decision taken by the
authority/State.
31. It has been also submitted in reply of respondent No.4
that the policy decision of the Government was absolutely correct,
and referring to Clause 22.4 of Chapter 22 of the Handbook on
Personnel Matters, the deadline age is of 62 years. Further that for
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-13-
considering public interest, the overriding consideration for granting
High Court of H.P.
extension should be clearly visible, and in addition, one of the two
conditions is also required to be satisfied, which are as under:-
(i) That the officers are not ripe enough to take over
the job; or
(ii) That the retiring officer is of outstanding merit.
32. The State has not placed on record any document to
substantiate the exceptional circumstances warranting continuation
or re-employment of respondent No.4. However, by making various
submissions as well as referring to Chapter 22 of the Handbook on
Personnel Matters, respondent No.4 has placed on record details of
certain works in Annexure R-4/2 filed with the reply, to demonstrate
that there are certain projects which require supervision in continuity,
and therefore there was an inevitable public interest to continue
respondent No.4 on the post of Engineer-in-Chief.
33. Respondent No.4 has also placed on record
communication dated 22.04.2026, whereby it has been
communicated that it had been decided by the Government that
extension of service, re-employment, or re-engagement of retired
government servants shall henceforth be considered only in rare and
exceptional circumstances in the larger public interest.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-14-
Submissions of learned Advocate General
High Court of H.P.
34. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the
process was initiated, wherein petitioner was considered, but the
process was halted because no vacancy was available on account
of re-employment of respondent No.4, and the process was
deferred. Further that petitioner has a right to be considered, but no
fundamental right for promotion.
35. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that
the conditions in Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters
are directory, but not mandatory, and the retiring officer is of
outstanding merit, and therefore, he has been given extension of
service after bringing all facts to the notice of the competent
authority, and therefore, the process is legal. He has further
submitted that therefore the decision-making process can be under
challenge, but not the decision. Referring to the documents placed
on record by the petitioner received under the Right to Information
Act (in short 'RTI Act'), he has stated that after N-50, all facts were
brought to the notice of the competent authority and everything was
placed before the competent authority, as evident from N-61 to N-
64. According to him, after considering the aforesaid all facts, as
recorded in N-70, approval was granted for extension of service for
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-15-
six months by competent authority to which petitioner has no right to
High Court of H.P.
assail.
36. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate General
that until vacancy is available, no right can be claimed by the
petitioner for promotion, and presently the vacancy is occupied by
respondent No.4. Referring to CWPIL No.26 of 2025, titled Atul
Sharma versus Union of India , it has been submitted by the learned
Advocate General that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
37. It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that
it is the duty of the officers to place everything before the competent
authority, and thereafter the decision is to be taken by the competent
authority, and such decision is not to be replaced by the Court by its
own opinion. He has also referred to the pronouncements of the
Apex Court reported in Dr. Jaya Thakur vs. Union of India & Ors ,
reported in (2023) 10 SCC 276 and Common Cause (a Registered
Society) vs. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (2023) 10 SCC 321 .
38. Learned Advocate General has also referred to the
Rules of Business with the submission that the Chief Minister is the
competent authority to take a decision.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-16-
High Court of H.P.
Submissions of Respondent No.4
39. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that
the extension is in relaxation of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules,
fulfilling the two tests of public interest as well as that no suitable
successor is available. It has been submitted that the post of
Engineer-in-Chief is a technical post, and therefore, to complete the
ensuing projects, continuation of the supervision by the same
incumbent serving as Engineer-in-Chief was necessary and in public
interest, and therefore, no fault can be found in the extension of
service of respondent No.4. He has also referred to details of the
projects placed on record in document Annexure R-4/2.
40. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that
provisions of Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters are
to be construed harmoniously to enable the State to grant extension
to the deserving incumbents. It has been submitted that the post of
Engineer-in-Chief is a very sensitive post, and therefore, the
competent authority has rightly, in the given circumstances,
extended the service of respondent No.4. Disputing the locus of the
petitioner to file the petition, judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay
Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Arvind Rai & Ors. reported in (2022) 12
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-17-
SCC 579 has also been referred by learned counsel for respondent
High Court of H.P.
No. 4.
Rebuttal by petitioner
41. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that it is apparent from the record that the petitioner is
more qualified than respondent No.4, and referring to paragraph 69
of the judgment in Atul Sharma's case, he has submitted that the
observations in paragraph 69 substantiate the claim of the petitioner.
42. It has been further submitted that as per the prescribed
procedure, the file was to be moved from the bottom to top,
canvassing the requirement of extension of service of respondent
No.4, but in the present case, everything was complete by the
Selection Committee for selection and appointment of the petitioner
as Engineer-in-Chief, and the process for extension of service was
never initiated from the bottom, but the mandate was received from
the top and the file was moved from top to the bottom in reverse
order, giving extension of service to respondent No.4, whereas as
per paragraph 22.3 contained in Chapter 22 of the Handbook on
Personnel Matters, after attaining the age of retirement, the
extension should be given only in exceptional circumstances for
extraordinary reasons.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-18-
43. It has been further submitted that relaxation in FR 56
High Court of H.P.
cannot be given arbitrarily, but has to be on the basis of really
exceptional circumstances. It has been submitted that the petitioner
is M.Tech, whereas respondent No.4 is B.Tech, and he is a more
suitable candidate than respondent No.4, and from the noting portion
and the reply of respondent-State filed on the affidavit of Secretary
(Personnel), it is apparent that the petitioner was available as the
most suitable candidate for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-
Chief, and thus, none of the essential requirements warranting
extension of service of respondent No.4 was in existence.
44. To substantiate his plea, he has referred to the
pronouncements of the Apex Court reported in Ajay Kumar Shukla
and others vs. Arvind Rai and others along with connected
matters reported in (2022) 12 SCC 579 and Dr.Jaya Thakur vs.
Union of India and others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 276 .
Consideration, Analysis and Conclusion
45. For adjudication of the issue involved in the present
matter, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Extension
and Re-employment provided in Chapter 22 of the Handbook on
Personnel Matters, Volume-II, Edition 2021 , which reads as
under:-
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-19-
“Chapter 22
High Court of H.P.
EXTENSION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT
22.1 Superannuation
Superannuation is retirement from the service on
attainment of specific age. The competent authority (Central or
State govt.) decides on the age limit for different posts. F.R. 56
contains detailed provisions about the specific age of
superannuation.
22.2 Distinction between Extension and Re-employment
The term "extension" is quite different from the term/
expression "re-employment".
Extension in service - The extension in service is con-
tinuance in service and the officer/official does not su-
perannuate or retires on reaching the date of superan-
nuation.
Further, the period of extension in service counts for
qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity
and other retirement benefits, besides entitling the
incumbent to full pay and allowances and increments
etc. In addition, the concerned officer/officials in whose
favour extension in service is granted remains a member
of service if he/she was so appointed and will be bound
by the specific rules governing the service.
Re-employment - The employment after actual super-
annuation or retirement is called "re-employment". The
re-employment may be from the date following the date
of superannuation or after some period.
A re-employed officer/official gets pension and his/her
pay is fixed under special orders. A re-employed officer/official
is governed by the general rules governing service conditions
of a Government employee and such other rules as may be
specified in the terms of re-employment. The period of re-
employment doesn't qualify as service for pension and other
benefits, in so far as his/her service from which he/she had
superannuated is concerned. However, the eligibility of a re-
employed persons to a second pension based on the basis of
re-employment will depend on the terms of the re-employment.
22.3 Extension or re-employment only in really exceptional
circumstances
The age of retirement of different categories of
Government employees has been laid down in the
Fundamental Rules, 56. On attaining the age indicated in the
above rules, retirement is automatic and in the absence of
specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority a
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-20-
government employee must retire on the due date. The date of
superannuation of a government employee is known in
advance and ordinarily there should not be the question of
failure to make arrangements for his/her release sufficiently in
advance. It is the responsibility of the administrative authority
concerned to ensure that the government employees under
their control so retire. It would be appreciated that in each case
of extension or re-employment, it is not only the next man who
misses promotion but often several people miss consequential
promotions all along the hierarchical strata. Thus, one person
getting re-employment/extension means deferment of
promotion for six or seven persons. Too many cases of
extension in service or reemployment are apt to cause
frustration and affect the morale of the staff in general. Keeping
in view these circumstances the following criteria and
procedure have been evolved with a view to ensure that
extension/re-employments of superannuated officers are
resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances.
High Court of H.P.
22.4 CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION/RE-EMPLOYMENT
With regard to the grant of extension/re-employment, the
following instructions have been issued:
(1) No proposal for extension of service/re-employment
beyond the age of superannuation should ordinarily be
considered.
(2) Extension in service/re-employment can be justified only
in very rare and exceptional circumstances. Even in such
cases, 60 years of age should be the deadline for non-
scientific/technical posts and 62 years in the case of
scientific/technical personnel. This should not be construed to
mean that extensions of service/re-employment can be granted
to non-scientific 'non-technical personnel' upto the age of 60
years and to scientific/technical personnel upto the age of 62
years more or less as a matter of course. The over-riding
consideration for the grant of extension of service/re-
employment is that it must be clearly in the public interest and
in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-
(i) that other officers are not ripe enough to take over
the job; or
(ii) that the retiring officer is of outstanding merit.
Test (i) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in
particular specialisation or if it is not possible to find a suitable
successor or if the officer is engaged on a work or project of
vital importance which is likely to produce results in a year or
two. If officers in the next lower post are not eligible for
promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-21-
service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no
promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such
officers put in the requisite length of service. But officers who
are eligible for promotion to the post, against which
extension/re-employment is recommended, should not be
rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much
experience as the retiring officer. They should be considered for
promotion according to the recruitment rules and if they are
found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being
vacated by the retiring officers.
High Court of H.P.
Test (ii) would not be satisfied by the mere fact that the
specialist (e.g. a scientific or technical officer) is fit in all
respects or is otherwise able to discharge effectively the duties
of the post held by him.
(1) No extension of service/re-employment should be
considered on the ground that a suitable successor is
not available unless it is established that action to select
a successor had been taken well in advance but the
selection could not be finalised in time for justifiable
reasons.
(2) A proposal for the grant of extension of service/re-
employment based merely on the consideration that the
officer's predecessor had been given extension/re-
employment should obviously not be accepted.
(3) In the case of honorary appointment in Public Sector
Undertakings e.g. appointments on the Board of
Directors of Public Sector Undertakings the limit may be
65 years provided the appointment is really honorary
and does not carry any substantial remuneration.
(Ministry of Home Affairs O.M No. 26/11/68-Ests (B) dated 17-
06-1969)
22.4.1 Grant of extension in service/re-employment -
Hon'ble High Court of H.P decision dated 08-02-2018
On the basis of letter petition highlighting the practice of
the Government giving re-employment/extension to such of
those employees, who stand superannuated/retired, addressed
to the Court, Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh taking
suo motu cognizance registered the petition (CWPIL No. 201 of
2017 Court on its own motion Versus State of H.P. & another)
on December 17, 2017 passed the following orders:-
6. The State is bound by the affidavit and as such, petition
is disposed of with a direction that henceforth no employee shall
be given extension or be re-employed beyond the age of
superannuation /retirement save and except, in accordance
with the Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-22-
Vol-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of Fundamental Rules
56(d). Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the Rules
framed be strictly followed."
High Court of H.P.
The State Government in the Department of Personnel
reiterated that the extension/re-employment beyond the age of
retirement/superannuation has to be allowed in very rare and
exceptional circumstances and strictly in accordance with
provisions provided under Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on
Personnel Matters Vol-II (2nd edition) and the provisions of FR
56 (d). Extension in service/re-employment given if any, in
government service without observance of the above
prescribed provisions of rules will be construed as contempt of
the Court and the concerned Administrative Department shall
solely be responsible for such violation.
(H.P. Govt. Department of Personnel letter No. Per(AP.B)B(2)-
56/2017 dated 08-02-2018 Annexure 22.2)
22.5 No Extension in service on compassionate grounds to
be allowed
Of late it has been observed that cases are being
referred for granting extension in service on compassionate
grounds to enable the individual to discharge family obligations
etc. This is against the very principle of retirement and retention
in service of a Govt. servant who has attained the age of
superannuation is not justified and the Finance Department do
not agree to such requests.
(H.P. Govt. Finance Department O.M No. Fin(C)B(15)-4/79
dated 2-2-1983)
22.6 Procedure for processing cases of extension in
service/re-employment
(i) A systematic review of the officers approaching the age
of superannuation should be conducted well in advance
so that whenever necessary suitable persons are
selected in time to replace such officers and given
training before hand thereby minimizing the number of
proposals for extension/re-employment.
(ii) Proposals for grant of extension of service to the officers
working in posts outside the cadre to which they
permanently belong should have specific concurrence of
the cadre authority.
(iii) Whenever any officer is considered for grant of
extension or reemployment, his character roll and
personal file should be carefully scrutinised and all other
relevant information that may be available should be
taken into account to judge whether the officer had good
reputation for integrity and honesty. In cases where the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-23-
officer is not considered to have good reputation for
integrity and honesty, he should not be considered
eligible for grant of extension/re-employment in service.
The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry
should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the
Annexure II as follows where it proposes to grant
extension of service/re-employment:-
High Court of H.P.
"Having scrutinised the character roll and personal file of
Shri/Smt./Kum. and having taken into account all other
relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a
good reputation for integrity and honesty."
(iv) The following proforma may be utilised by the
Administrative Department/Departments while
considering the cases of extension in service/re-
employment of any officer or member of the staff.
Proforma
Proforma for sending proposals for approval of
Government for grant of extension/re-employment to
Government employees beyond the age of superannuation.
1. Designation of Post.
2 Duration of the post:
Scale and terms of the post and
3.
perquisite attached, if any:
Whether financial sanction for the
creation of post/continuance of post for
the duration shown at (2) has been
obtained:
4.
5. Method of recruitment:
Name and the terminal date of
appointment of the outgoing incumbent
of the post:
6.
Name of the officer proposed for
appointment and the service to which
he belongs:
7.
Full service particulars of the officer
8.
with date of birth and pay drawn:
9. Names of other officers considered:
If promotion post, whether copies of
proceedings of a D.P.C are being
enclosed? If not, why not?
10.
Whether character roll of the officers
proposed and those considered are
being sent. If not, why not?
11.
If the proposal involves extension/re-
12 (i)
employment, please indicate:
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-24-
(a) Whether the post is scientific/
technical or non-scientific/non-
technical:
High Court of H.P.
13
(b) Whether the officer is to be granted
extension of service or re-employment:
c) Periods of extension/re-employment
granted earlier to the officers, if any:
d) Date from which extension/re-
employment is to be granted.
e) Period of extension of service/re-
employment:
Justification for grant of extension/re-
employment if the post is
scientific/technical:
(ii)
Justification for grant of extension/re-
employment if the post is non-
technical/non-scientific:
(iii)
The date from which it was known that
(iv)
vacancy would occur:
Action taken to select a successor with
chronological details:
If selection is being made, reasons why
this could not be finalized in good time.
If proposal involves extension/re-
employment can some officiating or
ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending
fresh appointment by proper selection?
If not, why not?
Whether orders of the Minister-in-
charge have been obtained?
Whether the prescribed Integrity
certificate, from the appropriate
authority, is enclosed.”
13
Details placed on record regarding process undertaken for
filling-up/extension to the post of Engineer-in-Chief (ENC)
46. It would be also relevant to refer to the record of the files
related to the issue involved in the present case, has also been
placed on record by the petitioner after receiving the same under the
RTI Act, which is being referred hereinafter.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-25-
“िहमाचल Ů देश सरकार
High Court of H.P.
-308- It is submitted that there are 2 (two) posts of
Engineer-in-Chief in the HPPWD and the incumbency position
is as under:-
1. Er. Narinder Pal Singh, Engineer-in-
Chief, HPPWD, Shimla.
2. Er. Surinder Paul, Engineer-in-Chief
(Projects), HPPWD, Shimla.
-309- The post of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla
shall fall vacant w.e.f. 01.05.2026 due to retirement of present
incumbent Er. Narinder Pal Singh on 30.04.2026. Accordingly
this post is required to be filled up from eligible Chief Engineers,
HPPWD and the meeting of DPC is required to be convene well
in time. Hence, if approved, may request the AD (PWD) to
furnish the proposal to convene the meeting as per DFA please.
Submitted please.
Sect.
03/03/2026
Supdt. (A-I) Sd/- 03/03/2026
S.O. (DOP-I)
Spl. Secy. (Pers)
Sd/- 05/03/2026
SS (Pers.) 116
05.03.2026
Worthy Secy (Pers)
Sd/- 07/03/2026
Spl Secy (Pers)
Sd/- 07/03/2026
S.O. (DOP-I)
Sd/- 09/07/2026
Sd/- Sh. Deep
Dy. No. 3380221/A-I/April, 2026
-310- P/221-226: In response to this department's letter
dated 07.03.2026 (P/220), the AD (Public Works) has furnished
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-26-
the proposal to fill up the post of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD
which is likely to fall vacant w.e.f. 01.05.2026 due to retirement
of Er. Narinder Pal Singh, Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla
on 30.04.2026 upon attaining the age of superannuation.
High Court of H.P.
-311- In this regard it is submitted that there are two
posts of Engineers-in-Chief in the Himachal Pradesh Public
Works Department out of which one post will be available to be
filled up by promotion from amongst the Chief Engineers,
HPPWD, w.e.f. 01.05.2026 due to retirement of Er. Narinder Pal
Singh, Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla on 30.04.2026 upon
attaining the age of superannuation.
-312- The post of Engineer-in-Chief is to be filled up by
conducting the Screening Committee Meeting on the pattern of
promotion to the posts of ADGP/DGP & Pr.CCF etc. In the
meeting of Screening Committee held on 02.11.2002, it was
decided that fundamental principle of merit with due regard to
seniority should be taken as principle parameters for selection
to the post and it was also decided in the said meeting that the
Chief Engineers, who possess at least 28 years of service in
the Gazetted rank including 5 (five) years' service as Chief
Engineer (Civil) and Superintending Engineer (Civil) combined
on regular and/or adhoc basis should be considered.
-313- The AD has intimated the particulars of the
following Chief Engineers to be considered for promotion to the
post of Engineer-in-Chief:
S.
Name of
CE (Civil),
Sh./Er. &
D.O.B.
Present
Posting
Date of
appointment
as AE
Date of
promotion
as SE
Date of
promotion
as CE
No.
1. Suresh
Kapoor
Chief
Engineer,
South Zone,
HPPWD,
Shimla
18.10.1996
06.01.2018
23.01.2023
23.03.1968
2. Narinder
Paul Singh
Chauhan
Chief
Engineer,
Mandi Zone,
HPPWD,
Mandi
18.10.1996
01.05.2018
23.01.2023
18.05.1969
3. Vikas Sood
Chief
Engineer,
Kangra
Zone,
HPPWD,
18.10.1996
15.10.2018
20.08.2023
08.03.1970
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-27-
Kangra
High Court of H.P.
4. Anita
Vaidya
Chief
Engineer
(PMGSY),
HPPWD,
Shimla
18.10.1996
05.02.2019
18.11.2023
04.04.1970
5. Ajay
Kapoor
Chief
Engineer
(NH),
HPPWD,
Shimla
18.10.1996
05.02.2019
07.12.2024
04.10.1970
-314- The officer mentioned at Sr. No. 1 has retired from
the Govt. Service on 31.03.2026, on attaining the age of
superannuation.
-315- The officers mentioned at Sr. No. 2 to 5 have
completed the prescribed 28 years' service in the gazetted
rank including 5 years' service as Chief Engineer and
Superintending Engineer combined. Hence, they are
required to be considered for promotion to the post of
Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD.
-316- After going through the ACRs/APARs dossiers of
the eligible Chief Engineers, supplied by the DoP (Confidential
Cell), it is observed that the APARs of Er. Narinder Pal Singh
Chauhan for the period 2023-24 and 2024-25, Er. Vikas Sood
for the period 2023-24 and 2024-25, Er. Anita Vaidya for the
period 2023-24 and 2024-25 and Er. Ajay Kapoor for the period
2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 are not available. The
ACR's/APAR's dossiers of the eligible officers are placed below
for perusal.
-317- The AD has intimated that the aforesaid officers
have passed the departmental examination and have also
submitted their assets and liabilities returns for the year 2025.
The AD has also furnished the VCC in respect of the officers as
issued by the Vigilance Department vide letter No. Home (Vig.)
A (8)-18/2025-VCC-PWD dated 19.03.2026.
-318- The constitution of the Screening Committee is as
under: -
1. Chief Secretary Chairman
2. Addl. Chief Secretary Member
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-28-
3. Pr. Secretary (Public Works) Member
High Court of H.P.
4. Secretary (Personnel) Member
-319- The draft memorandum has been prepared
accordingly which is submitted for kind perusal/approval
please.
Sect.
Sd/- 6.4.2026
Supdt. (A-I) — Sd/- 06/04/2026
SO (DOP-I)
N/319 ante: The Chief Secretary may nominate the 1st Member
of the Screening Committee and indicate convenient date &
time to chair the meeting of the Screening Committee to
consider promotion to the post of E-in-C, PWD.
-320-
Sd/- 07/04/2026
Spl. Secy. (Pers.)
Submitted please. Sd/-08.04.2026
Worthy Secretary (Pers.) Sd/-08.04.2026
Worthy Chief Secretary
-321- 09-04-2026, 11:30 AM.
Sd/-08.04.2026
Secy (Pers.)
SS (Pers.)
Sd/-08.04.2026
S.O. (DOP-I)
Sd/- 09.04.2026
Sd/- Sh. Deep”
47. In sequel to the aforesaid process, Special Secretary
(Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had also
prepared a Memorandum for consideration of the Screening
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-29-
Committee to consider promotion/placement to the post of Engineer-
High Court of H.P.
in-Chief, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, which is as
under:-
“MEMORANDUM FOR CONSIDERATION OF SCREENING
COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER PROMOTION/PLACEMENT TO THE
POST OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF HIMACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT IN THE LEVEL 31 OF THE PAY MATRIX
(₹1,48,800-₹2,18,600) PLUS SPECIAL ALLOWANCE ₹10,000/-.
There are two posts of Engineers-in-Chief in the
Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department out of which one post
will fall vacant w.e.f. 01.05.2026 due to retirement of Er. Narinder Pal
Singh, Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla on 30.04.2026 upon
attaining the age of superannuation.
The post of Engineer-in-Chief was previously filled up
by conducting the Screening Committee Meeting on the pattern of
promotion to the posts of ADGP/DGP & Pr.CCF etc. In the meeting
of Screening Committee held on 02.11.2002, it was decided that
fundamental principle of merit with due regard to seniority should be
taken as principle parameters for selection to the post and it was also
decided in the said meeting that the Chief Engineers, who possess
at least 28 years of service in the Gazetted rank including 5 (five)
years' service as Chief Engineer (Civil) and Superintending Engineer
(Civil) combined on regular and/or adhoc basis should be considered.
The AD (PWD) has furnished the particulars of the
following Chief Engineers to be considered for promotion to the post
of Engineer-in-Chief: -
S.
No.
Name of CE
(Civil),
Sh./Er. &
D.O.B.
Present
Posting
Date of
appointment
as AE
Date of
promotion
as SE
Date of
promotion
as CE
1. Narinder
Paul Singh
Chauhan
18.05.1969
Chief
Engineer,
Mandi Zone,
HPPWD,
Mandi
18.10.1996 01.05.2018 23.01.2023
2. Vikas Sood
08.03.1970
Chief
Engineer,
Kangra Zone,
HPPWD,
Kangra
18.10.1996 15.10.2018 20.08.2023
3. Anita Vaidya Chief 18.10.1996 05.02.2019 18.11.2023
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-30-
04.04.1970
Engineer
(PMGSY),
HPPWD,
Shimla
4. Ajay Kapoor
04.10.1970
High Court of H.P.
Chief
Engineer
(NH),
HPPWD,
Shimla
18.10.1996 05.02.2019 07.12.2024
All the incumbents have completed the prescribed
28 years' service in the gazetted rank including 5 years' service
as Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer combined.
Hence, they are eligible to be considered for promotion to the
post of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD.
As per the guiding principles/instructions issued by the
Department of Personnel on 27.02.2016, the post is required to be
filled up by 'Selection' on the basis of pre-determined benchmark as
per evaluation/assessment of ACRs/APARs, which is 'Very Good' for
posts carrying a Grade Pay of ₹7600/- (pre-revised) and above and
for 1 post, 5 eligible officers are to be considered for promotion.
However, there are only 4 eligible officers to be considered for
promotion. Further, as per DoP's guidelines issued on 21.06.2016, in
case of an officer to be considered for promotion to the 'Selection'
posts carrying grade pay of ₹7600/- (pre-revised) and above, the
prescribed benchmark of 'Very Good' is to be invariably met in all
APARs of five years under consideration.
The AD (PW) has certified the integrity of the aforesaid
officers. The Vigilance Department, vide its letter No. Home (Vig.) A
(8)-18/2025-VCC-PWD dated 19.03.2026, has issued Vigilance
Clearance Certificate in favour of the officers. The AD has also
furnished the certificate to the effect that the officers have submitted
their assets and liabilities returns for the year 2025.
After going through the ACRs/APARs dossiers of the
eligible Chief Engineers, supplied by the DoP (Confidential Cell), it is
observed that the APARs of Er. Narinder Paul Singh Chauhan for the
period 2023-24 and 2024-25, Er. Vikas Sood for the period 2023-24
and 2024-25, Er. Anita Vaidya for the period 2023-24 and 2024-25
and Er. Ajay Kapoor for the period 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25
are not available. Hence, the APARs of previous years have can be
considered in place of missing APARs.
However, the ACR's/APAR's dossiers of the eligible
officers are enclosed for perusal of the Screening Committee.
The constitution of the Screening Committee is as
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-31-
under: -
High Court of H.P.
1. Chief Secretary Chairman
2. Addl. Chief Secretary Member
3. Pr. Secretary (Public Works) Member
4. Secretary (Personnel) Member
The matter is submitted before the Screening
Committee for consideration and making suitable recommendations.
(Rajiv Kumar)
Place: Shimla Special Secretary (Personnel) to the
Dated: 8 April, 2026. Government of Himachal Pradesh ”
48. With the aforesaid Memorandum, the matter was to be
placed before the Screening Committee on 09.04.2026 at 11:30 AM
as directed by the Chief Secretary vide N-321 dated 08.04.2026.
However, on that day, Secretary (Personnel) was on tour, and
therefore, file was submitted to the Chief Secretary vide N-322,
which was dealt as under:-
“From overleaf:
-322- N/321 ante: As confirmed from the personal staff,
Secretary (Personnel) is on tour. Accordingly file is submitted
before Worthy Chief Secretary to indicate the suitable date to
convene the meeting of DPC to consider promotion to the post
of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD.
-323- Submitted please.
Sd/-
9.4.2026
Supdt (A-I) — Sd/- 09.04.2026
S.O. (DOP-I) — Sd/- 09/04/26
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-32-
Spl. Secy (Pers) — Sd/- 9/4/26
High Court of H.P.
Worthy Secy (Pers.) Sd/- 20/04/2026
Worthy Chief Secretary
Pl. spk Sd/- 22.04.2026
-324-
Secy (Pers) Sd/- 15/05/2026
SS (Pers) — Sd/- 15/5/26 ”
49. After the aforesaid observation "Please speak" made by
the Chief Secretary on 22.04.2026, there is complete silence till
15.05.2026. In the meanwhile, a parallel separate file was moved on
the basis of a note received from the Additional Principal Private
Secretary-cum-Special Secretary to the Chief Minister, whereby
approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister for granting extension in
service for a period of six months in favour of Narinder Pal Singh,
Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD was communicated. The movement of
the said file placed on record is as under:-
-58- P/76: A note has been received from the
Additional Principal Private Secretary-cum-Special Secretary to
Chief Minister, HP whereby the Hon'ble Chief Minister has
approved to grant extension in service for a period of six
months in favour of Sh. Narinder Pal Singh , Engineer-in-
Chief, HPPWD.
-59- In this regard it is submitted that Er. Narinder Pal
Singh, Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, is going to retire on
30.04.2026, upon attaining the age of superannuation. The
proposal for extension/re-employment beyond the age of
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-33-
retirement has to be considered in accordance with the
provisions mentioned in Chapter 22 of the Hand Book of
Personnel Matters, Volume-II and in accordance with the
provisions of FR 56(d).
High Court of H.P.
-60- Point 1 and 2 of Para 22.4 of Chapter 22 of
Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-II provides as under:
-
"(1) No proposal for extension of service/re-
employment beyond the age of superannuation
should ordinarily be considered.
(2)............... The overriding consideration for the
grant of extension of service/re-employment is
that it must be clearly in the public interest and in
addition satisfy on the following two conditions: -
(i) That other officers are not ripe enough to take
over the job; or
(ii) That the retiring officer is of outstanding merit.
Test (i) would be satisfied only if there is shortage
in a particular specialisation, or if it is not possible
to find a suitable successor or if the officer is
engaged on a work or project of vital importance
which is likely to produce results in a year or two.
If officers in the next lower post are not eligible for
promotion on the ground that they have not put in
the minimum service in the lower grade
prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be
made to the higher grade, unless such officers put
in the requisite length of service. But officers who
are eligible for promotion to the post against
which extension/re-employment is recommended
should not be rejected solely on the ground that
they do not have as much experience as the
retiring officer. They should be considered for
promotion according to the recruitment rules and
if they are found suitable, they should be
promoted to the post being vacated by the retiring
officer."
The provisions of the FR 56 (d) provide as under:
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-34-
-
High Court of H.P.
"(d) No Government servant shall be granted
extension in service beyond the age of retirement
of 58 years:
Provided that a Government servant dealing with
budget work or working as a full time member of
a committee which is to be wound up within a
short period of time may be granted extension of
service for a period not exceeding three months
in public interest..."
-61- As per provisions mentioned above, the
extension in service can be considered if officers in the next
lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they
have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade
prescribed under the rules. In the present case, the Chief
Engineers, HPPWD are eligible to be considered for promotion
to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD and the proposal for
convening meeting of Screening Committee for filling up the
post of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, due to retirement of the
aforesaid officer, has already been submitted to the authority.
-62- It is also pertinent to mention here that the DPC
for filling up the post of Chief Engineer, HPPWD was convened
on 26.02.2026 and the DPC has already recommended Er.
Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Superintending Engineer, HPPWD to
the post of Chief Engineer, HPPWD on or after 01.05.2026,
against the said anticipated vacancy due to promotion of one
Chief Engineer to the post of Engineer-in-Chief.
-63- In case the extension in service is granted to the
aforesaid officer, the officers in the feeder category will be
deprived of the promotion, which will cause unnecessary
litigation, as also evident from the past precedent.
-64- Further, the Department of Personnel (A-II) has
also issued instructions regarding grant of extension in
service/re-employment to the officers/officials after
superannuation vide letter dated 8th February, 2018, which
provide as under: -
"The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-35-
CWPIL No. 201 of 2017 titled Court in its own
motion versus State of H.P. & another has passed
the following order on 19.12.2017, after taking on
record the reply affidavit so filed by the State, as
under:
High Court of H.P.
6. The State is bound by the affidavit
and as such, petition is disposed of with a
direction henceforth no employee shall be
given extension or be re-employed beyond
the age of superannuation/retirement save
and except, in accordance with the
Chapter-22 of the Handbook on Personnel
Matters, Volume-II (2nd Edition) and the
provisions of the Fundamental Rules,
56(d). Letter and spirit of the criteria
prescribed and the rules framed be strictly
followed.
2. It is, therefore, reiterated that the extension
in service/re-employment beyond the age of
retirement/superannuation has to be allowed in
very rare and exceptional circumstances and
strictly in accordance with provisions provided
under Chapter-22 of the Handbook on Personnel
Matters, Volume-II (2nd Edition) and the
provisions of FR 56 (d)"
-65- The Department of Personnel has recently issued
instructions on 18.03.2026 (Flag-A), with regard to grant of
extension/re-employment of Government servants, whereby all
the Administrative Departments have been directed to review
the cases of officers/officials who have been granted extension-
in-service and re-employment and have been directed to cancel
the extension-in-service and re-employment where the
officer/official is found to be of doubtful integrity. It has also been
desired that in future, extension, re-employment and other
appointment shall not be granted to officers/officials whose
integrity is doubtful. Hence, in the present case, the integrity
certificate from the AD is also required.
-66- Further the Department of Personnel has
issued instructions on 7th April, 2026 (Flag-B), which
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-36-
provide that "henceforth no proposal seeking extension in
service, re-employment and re-engagement of any
officer/official shall be submitted by the Administrative
Departments and such proposal, if any, shall not be
entertained at any level and all departments are advised to
ensure strict compliance with these directions. However,
officers/officials who are presently on extension, re-
employment or re-engagement will be deemed to have
retired upon completion of their tenure."
High Court of H.P.
-67- Keeping in view the above, file is submitted
please.
Sd/- 28.04.2026
Supdt (A-I) — Sd/- 28.04.2026
S.O. (DoP-I) — Sd/- 28.04.2026
Spl. Secy. (Pers.) — Sd/- 28.04.2026
Worthy Secy. (Pers.)
-68- Submitted for consideration and further order pls.
Worthy Chief Secretary — Sd/- 28/4
-69- Submitted for orders of Hon'ble CM.
Sd/- 28/04/2026
Hon'ble CM.
-70- Approved for six months
Sd/- 28/4/26
CS — Sd/- 28/04/26
Secy (Personnel) — Sd/- 28/4/26
SS (Pers) — Sd/- 28/4/26
S.O. (DoP-I) — Sd/- 28/04/26
-71- N/70 ante: Accordingly DFA please.
Sd/- 28.4.2026
Supdt (A-I) — Sd/- 28.04.2026
S.O. (DoP-I) — Sd/- 28.04.2026
Spl. Secy. (Pers.) — Sd/- 28/04/2026
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-37-
Worthy Secy. (Pers.) — Sd/- 28/4/26
High Court of H.P.
SS (Pers) — Sd/- 28/4/26”
50. After the aforesaid Notification dated 28.04.2026
granting extension to respondent No.4, the file deferred with the note
of the Chief Secretary "Please speak" was moved by the Special
Secretary (Personnel) on 15.05.2026 and was closed, as evident
from the following information placed on record:-
-324-
Secy (Pers) Sd/- 15/05/2026
SS (Pers) — Sd/- 15/5/26
SO(DOP-1)
Sd/-
15/5/2026
//Sh.Deep//
From overleaf:
-325- N/323-324 ante: Er. Narinder Pal Singh,
Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, has been granted extension in
service for a period of 6 months vide this department's
notification dated 28.04.2026 (F/A). Hence, there is no vacancy
of the post of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD currently available
with this department. May kindly allow to file the matter.
Sd/- /16.05.2026
SO (A-I)
N/325 ante: In view of the above, may
close the matter till the vacancy is
available on the said level/grade.
Sd/- 16/05/2026
Spl. Secy. (Pers.) – Sd/- 16.05.2026
Worthy Secy. (Pers.) – Sd/- 16.05.2026
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-38-
Worthy Chief Secy. – Sd/- 18.05.2026
High Court of H.P.
Secy (Pers.) – Sd/- 18.05.2026
SS (Pers.) – Sd/- 18/05/2026
S.O.(A-I) ”
CWPIL No.201 of 2017 titled Court on its own motion versus
State of H.P. and Another ,
51. A Division Bench of this High Court, after taking into
consideration the criteria for grant of extension/re-employment
provided under Clause 22.4 of above-referred Chapter 22 as well as
the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, in CWPIL
No.201 of 2017 titled Court on its own motion versus State of
H.P. and Another , decided on 19.12.2017 (Annexure P-7), has held
as under:-
4. From the response, on record, so filed by the State,
factum of the contents of the complaint have turned out to be
correct. However the State, from the affidavit dated 04.12.2017
of the Deputy Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh, has explained that appointment beyond the
age of superannuation is given in terms of notification dated
24.03.2015. Also re-employment/extension is regulated, in
terms of Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters
Vol-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of Fundamental Rules
56(d).
5. Perusal of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters to this
effect, which reads as under as also the relevant Rules only
fortify the stand taken by the letter petitioner that extension
beyond the age of retirement/superannuation has to be in “very
rare” and “exceptional” circumstances:-
“ 22.4 Criteria for Extension/Re-Employment
xx xx xx”
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-39-
6. The State is bound by the affidavit and as such, petition
is disposed of with a direction that henceforth no employee shall
be given extension or be re-employed beyond the age of
superannuation / retirement save and except, in accordance
with the Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters
Vol-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of Fundamental Rules
56(d). Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the Rules
framed be strictly followed.”
High Court of H.P.
CWPIL No.201 of 2017 titled Court on its own motion versus
State of H.P. and Another , and CWP No.475 of 2025 , titled
Sanjeev Dhiman versus State of H.P.
52. Another Division Bench of this High Court in CWP
No.231 of 2025 , titled Vishal Sharma versus State of H.P. , along
with CWP No.475 of 2025 , titled Sanjeev Dhiman versus State of
H.P. , decided by a common judgment dated 01.04.2025, had dealt
with the issue of extension in service/re-employment in favour of
Director, Animal Husbandry Department to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh, vide Notification dated 02.01.2025, on the basis
of representation made by the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture and
Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh, approved by the Hon'ble
Chief Minister, with communication to the Principal Secretary
(Animal Husbandry) to the Government of H.P. to take further
necessary action in the matter as per observations of the Hon'ble
Chief Minister.
53. After the aforesaid communication received from the
office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Department had processed
the file in purported compliance of Chapter 22 referred supra , and
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-40-
thereafter again the file was placed before the Competent Authority,
High Court of H.P.
(Hon'ble Chief Minister), along with details of representations
preferred by Dr. Vishal Sharma and Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman, the then
Joint Directors of the Animal Husbandry Department, Himachal
Pradesh. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Minister had observed in
writing that the Director may be re-employed for six months.
54. In the aforesaid case ( Dr. Vishal Sharma and Dr.
Sanjeev Dhiman’s case ), the Division Bench, after taking into
consideration the provisions of Chapter 22 of the above referred
Handbook dealing with extension and re-employment, as well as
various pronouncements of the Courts in Satrudhan Sahani and
others vs. the State of Bihar and others , 1991 Patna 211 ; Home
Secretary, U.T. of Chandigarh and another vs. Darshjit Singh
Grewal and others , (1993) 4 SCC 25 ; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , B.S.
Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute, 1984 SC 363 , Amarjit
Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab, 1975 SC 984 , Sukhdev
Singh vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, 1975 SC 1331 ;
Swaran Singh Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2009
(13) SCC 758 and H.V. Nirmala vs. Karnataka State Financial,
Corpn. 2008 SC 2440 ; N. Kannapan vs. State (Union territory)
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 2013 SC 336 and Harjit Singh vs.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-41-
State of Punjab, 2002 SC 3040 ; State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
High Court of H.P.
Singhara Singh and others , AIR 1964 SC 358 ; Hukam Chand
Shyam Lal vs. Union of India and others , 1976 SC 789 and
Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahabir Prasad and others , J.T. 1999
(7) 256 , has observed that administrative instructions/circulars
issued by the Government are expected to be followed and obeyed,
as the very object of issuance of such administrative instructions is
to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fair play, and in the absence of any
statutory provision, the Government cannot act contrary to executive
instructions. The acts must be done in a prescribed manner and in
no other way, and conditions of rules and prescribed procedure must
be satisfied with application of mind.
55. With the aforesaid observations, the re-employment
granted to the Director, Animal Husbandry, was quashed and set
aside. The following paragraphs of the said judgment would be
relevant to be referred:-
“6. Respondent No.2 in this case had forwarded a copy of
representation of the Minister for Agriculture, Animal
Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh received from the Hon’ble Chief
Minister’s office regarding grant of extension in service/re-
employment in favour of respondent No.4, who was due to
retire on 31.12.2024.
7. In the representation, it was observed that respondent
No.4 is very hardworking officer and well conversant with every
activities of the Department. It was further observed that during
his tenure as Director, he handled the things perfectly and
efficiently and, therefore, keeping in view the work experience,
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-42-
the Minister concerned recommended his case for
extension/re-employment in favour of respondent No.4 atleast
for one year in the larger public interest.
High Court of H.P.
8. The competent authority, after taking into consideration
the service experience of respondent No.4 and
recommendation of the Minister, approved re-employment in
his favour for a period of six months on the post of Director,
Animal Husbandry in the larger public interest. Accordingly,
respondent No.4 was re-employed to the post of Director,
Animal Husbandry vide Notification dated 02.01.2025.
xx xx xx
12. It would be clear from the aforesaid provisions that this
Court while disposing of CWPIL No.201 of 2017 had passed
specific directions that “henceforth no employee shall be given
extension or be re-employed beyond the age of
superannuation/retirement save and except, in accordance with
the Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-II
nd
(2 Edition) and the provisions of Fundamental rules 56(d).
Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the Rules framed
be strictly followed” .
13. At this stage, it needs to be observed that this Court
cannot go into the “suitability” and “eligibility” of respondent
No.4 to hold the post and it is not open to the petitioners to call
upon the Government to justify as to why they choose to
exercise the power of re-employment. The reasons for
exercising the powers of re-employment are not justiciable, as
the source of power is traceable to the Constitution. Therefore,
the only question that remains to be considered and answered
is whether the provisions of Chapter 22 have been followed in
its letter and spirit as earlier directed by this Court in CWPIL
No.201 of 2017.
14. In order to satisfy ourselves regarding the adherence to
Chapter 22 by the respondents, we have called for the original
record and find that it was the Minister of Agriculture and Animal
Husbandry, who requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister vide
letter dated 12.12.2024 to grant extension to respondent No.4.
xx xx xx
24. Having gone through the records produced by the
respondents, we find that the procedure as contemplated in
Clause 22.6 has not been followed and rather has been violated
with impunity, that too, despite the judgment passed by this
Court in CWPIL No.201 of 2017. Even the certificate of integrity
and thereafter the proforma as prescribed under this provision
is not available anywhere on the record.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-43-
xx xx xx
High Court of H.P.
34. Moreover, in addition to the existence of
extraordinary circumstances, the re-employment can only be
made in public interest. The State has to consider the need for
reemployment in the larger public interest of public as well as
the department and its decision ought not to be sponsored by
private or political interests.
35. The Government is obliged to balance the need
for re-employment in public interest on the one hand and its
obligation to consider the cases of other eligible candidates or
their non-availability on the other. This approach alone would
be in accordance with the specific instructions issued by the
Government itself. The decision of the Government in
reemploying a Government servant, thus, must stand the acid
test of duel criteria afore referred.
36. As already observed above, the sole ground for
extension/re-employment was the recommendation of the
Hon’ble Minister, upon which, the Hon’ble Chief Minister had
already approved six months’ re-employment. Prior to that the
file was not processed at all by the Department. Therefore,
once a decision had already been taken by the Hon’ble Chief
Minister, who on earth muchless a “lesser mortal” , could have
bye-passed the order. Obviously, such decision had to be
justified at all costs. The respondent-State admittedly did not at
all consider whether other eligible candidates are available in
the Department. This attitude of the State certainly tilts the
balance of equality and administrative exigencies towards
private/individual interest rather than public interest.
Administrative orders of the present kind must serve a greater
public interest. It must be passed on public grounds and the
said expression is of wide magnitude and cannot have such a
limited meaning that because merely a person being a Director,
he must continue in the Department, more particularly, the
provisions of Chapter 22 of the Handbook, which are
mandatory, were required to be followed.
37. We need to reiterate that normally, the power of
the Government in regard to the re-employment/extension is
absolute, but is subject to the conditions and limitations
provided in the rules or instructions. Once the Government
forms the opinion that it is in public interest, then, correctness
of such opinion can normally be not challenged before the
Courts. However, if such decision is arbitrary, it will be open for
the Court to interfere in such matters.
38. After all it is the Government itself while
incorporating Clause 22 has specifically mentioned “it would be
appreciated that in each case of extension or re-employment, it
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-44-
is not only the next man who misses promotion, but often
several people miss consequential promotions all along the
hierarchical strata. Thus, one person getting re-
employment/extension means deferment of promotion for six or
seven persons” .
High Court of H.P.
39. No doubt, it is the Government which is the final authority
to take such a decision. The decision is subjective but ought to
be data based, bonafide and in public interest as well as in the
interest of administration of service of the State. Ordinarily, the
burden of showing the exceptional circumstances and public
grounds is on the State and it must be reflected from the record.
40. Administrative orders of the present kind must serve a
greater public interest. It must be passed on public grounds and
it is for this precise reason that the respondents, in their
wisdom, provided for a proper procedure for processing cases
of extension in service/re-employment.
41. It is more than settled that extension in
service/reemployment, is only to be made in exceptional
circumstances, whereas the instant case, is one “spoil system”
as the reemployment has been made illegally. Merely because
the recommendation has come from an elected representative,
would not justify the extension/re-employment, in absence of
satisfaction recorded.
42. Since, the respondents have failed to follow the
procedure as contemplated in Chapter 22 of the Hand Book on
Personal Matters, which as per directions of this Court passed
in CWPIL No.201 of 2017 titled as Court on its own motion
vs. State of H.P and another , decided on 19th December,
2017, have been held to be binding on the State Government
and further directed to be followed in letter and spirit. Therefore,
the re-employment granted to respondent No.4 cannot be
countenanced and the same is required to be quashed and set
aside.”
CWPIL No. 26 of 2025 , titled Atul Sharma versus Union of India
and others
56. The judgment pronounced by a Division Bench of this
High Court, on 21.11.2025 in CWPIL No. 26 of 2025 , titled Atul
Sharma versus Union of India and others , is related to the
extension granted to the Chief Secretary to the Government of
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-45-
Himachal Pradesh by the Central Government on the
High Court of H.P.
recommendation made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State.
57. The factual matrix of Atul Sharma’s case was
altogether different, as in the said case, extension of the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was involved,
which was approved by the Union of India by following the proper
procedure, and keeping in view the nature and job of the Chief
Secretary and finding on the basis of record that sufficient cause had
been made out in the recommendations made on account of public
interest, and the justification given was acted upon by the Competent
Authority, the Division Bench did not show its inclination to go into
the decision-making process itself by substituting the same with
personal opinion.
58. However, in the aforesaid judgment in Atul Sharma’s
case , the Division Bench had also observed that in Vishal Sharma
and Sanjeev Dhiman's case, justification was found lacking, and
therefore, on facts, both cases were different, with further
observation that in Vishal Sharma and Sanjeev Dhiman's case,
Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters was in reference,
which was not a case in extension of the Chief Secretary, which is
dealt with under a different set of rules, as noticed in the said
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-46-
judgment. In this regard, paragraph 69 of the Atul Sharma’s
High Court of H.P.
judgment is relevant to be referred, which reads as under:-
“69. Reliance upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in
Vishal Sharma’s case (supra) would go on to show that it was
a case of re-employment granted to the post of Director, Animal
Husbandry and the Rules in question were contained in
Chapter 22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters and it was
not a case of extension of the Chief Secretary as such which is
under different set of Rules, as noticed. Therefore, in the said
case findings were recorded that the procedure followed had
not been adhered to and it was held that the re-employment
cannot be countenanced and has been set aside while noting
that the file was not at all processed by the department.
Therefore, the justification was found lacking. Thus, the facts
as such in the said case cannot be said to be similar, in any
manner, to the present case.”
Final Conclusion
59. After going through the record and the details of records
placed before us by both parties, we find that the present case is
almost similar to the case of extension of Director, Animal Husbandry
Department adjudicated in CWP No. 231 of 2025 (CWP No. 231 and
232 of 2025, titled Vishal Sharma and Sanjeev Dhiman's case ),
because the post of Director, Animal Husbandry is the highest post
in the Animal Husbandry Department next to the Secretary Incharge
of the Department, and similarly, the post of ENC involved in the
present case is the highest post in the PWD Department next to the
concerned Secretary Incharge to the Government of Himachal
Pradesh. Both cannot be equated with the post of Chief Secretary,
but are on the same footing in comparison to each other.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-47-
60. As per the provisions of Chapter 22, and as also held by
High Court of H.P.
the Courts in the judgments referred supra, for extension of service,
the extension of service must be clearly in the public interest, and in
addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-
(i) that other officers are not ripe enough to take over
the job;
(ii) that the retiring officer is of outstanding merit.
61. From the material placed on record, it is evident that it
was never the case of the Department as well as Secretary
(Personnel) or even the Chief Secretary that extension of service of
respondent No. 4 was required in public interest. It was also not the
case of the Department and the concerned officers, that no other
officer had ripened enough to take over the job or that the retiring
officer was of outstanding merit. Instead, Secretary (Personnel) and
the Department had moved the file for promotion of eligible Chief
Engineer to the post of Engineer-in-Chief likely to be falling vacant
on retirement of respondent No. 4. The Screening Committee as
required to be constituted, was constituted by the Department of
Personnel with concurrence of the Chief Secretary, consisting of
Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary
(Public Works), and Secretary (Personnel). Memorandum for
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-48-
consideration of Screening Committee was ready and for this
High Court of H.P.
purpose, the meeting of the Screening Committee was going to be
convened on 09.04.2026. However, as Secretary (Personnel) was
on tour, the meeting was deferred, and the file was placed before the
Chief Secretary to fix the next date, but at that time, the file was
deferred with the note "Please speak" (Pls. spk.).
62. Till deferment of the file of promotion as referred supra
or even thereafter, there was no case placed or pending before the
competent authority referring the requirement of extension of service
of respondent No. 4 in public interest or on account of either of the
two tests referred in Chapter 22 referred supra .
63. After deferring the meeting of the Screening Committee,
approval of extension of service of respondent No.4 by the Hon'ble
Chief Minister, was communicated to the concerned authority and
then the file was moved, movement whereof has been placed on
record with the noting sheet quoted supra. In the noting of the said
file also, there is no reference to public interest or fulfillment of the
two tests / condition precedent for extension of service in addition to
public interest. Rather, it appears from the record that instead of
expressing public interest or necessity of extension of service of
respondent No. 4, the note speaks otherwise by referring to the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-49-
notification dated 07.04.2026, whereby the decision of the
High Court of H.P.
Government was communicated that no proposal for extension of
service shall be entertained at any level and all departments were
advised to ensure strict compliance with these directions. Despite
that, the extension of service of respondent No. 4 was approved for
six months by the competent authority / Hon'ble Chief Minister on
28.04.2026 with the noting "Approved for 6 Months".
64. It is also a matter of record that no requisite proforma,
as prescribed in Chapter 22 referred supra, was ever filled in by
respondent No. 4 or by the Department, much less submitted to the
competent authority to justify the extension of service of respondent
No.4.
65. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent-State also,
there is not a single word uttered showing the public interest and
fulfilling either of the conditions provided in Test (i) and Test (ii) of
Chapter 22, which are pre-conditions for extension of service of an
employee in addition to public interest. Instead, it has been reiterated
that a meeting of the Screening Committee to fill up the post of
Engineer-in-Chief (in short 'ENC') is convened by the Secretary
(Personnel) from time to time, and in the present case also, the file
was put up to the competent authority to convene the meeting of the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-50-
Screening Committee for filling up the post of Engineer-in-Chief,
High Court of H.P.
Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (in short 'HPPWD'),
which was likely to fall vacant on 01.05.2026 due to the retirement of
respondent No. 4 on 30.04.2026 on attaining the age of
superannuation. It had been further submitted that in the meanwhile,
the Additional Principal Private Secretary-cum-Special Secretary to
Chief Minister, vide U.O. Note No.APPS/2/2026, dated 28.04.2026,
intimated that Hon'ble Chief Minister had approved the grant of
extension in service in favour of respondent No. 4 for a period of six
months, which was put up on file for consideration of the authority,
and the competent authority approved extension in service in favour
of respondent No. 4, and accordingly notification dated 28.04.2026
(Annexure P-6 to the writ petition) was issued in regard to extension
in service of respondent No. 4 for a period of six months, stating it to
be in public interest.
66. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, all other
averments/contentions preferred in the petition have been admitted.
Applicable criteria for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief has
also been admitted, but with the further submission that however,
since respondent No. 4 had been granted extension of service with
the approval of the competent authority in public interest.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-51-
67. Public interest is not a magic word, user of which itself
High Court of H.P.
discloses the public interest which was or is warranted for the
impugned action of the respondent-State. There is not an iota of
evidence on record to indicate the public interest which warranted
the competent authority to grant extension of service to respondent
No. 4. Along with the reply of the State, no document has been filed
nor any record was or had been ever produced indicating the public
interest for extension of service and fulfilling either of the two tests
which are required in existence in addition to public interest for
extension of service.
68. As already observed, the file dealing with the grant of
extension of service to respondent No. 4 also does not refer to any
public interest and/or fulfilling either of the tests provided under
Chapter 22 in addition to the public interest.
69. Like Vishal Sharma's case, in the present case also, the
decision of Hon'ble Chief Minister approving six months' extension
of service to respondent No. 4 has been conveyed to the concerned
authority which had already undertaken the process for
promotion/filling up the post of Engineer-in-Chief by constituting a
Screening Committee and fixing the date of the meeting of the
Screening Committee for filling the vacancy going to arise on the
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-52-
retirement of respondent No. 4 on 30.04.2026. The competent
High Court of H.P.
authority deferred the process of promotion, and acted upon the
communication received from the office of Chief Minister through the
Additional Principal Private Secretary-cum-Special Secretary to the
Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, and therefore there was no
choice with the Department for application of mind by the competent
authority. However, it is also apt to notice that despite receiving the
intimation of approval of extension of service, the matter was placed
before the Hon'ble Chief Minister with a noting reflecting the situation
otherwise, on the basis of which extension of service of respondent
No. 4 could have been declined, but contrary to the essence of the
noting, the Competent Authority (Hon'ble Chief Minister) approved
the extension for six months without citing any reason for not
showing agreement with the case placed before him indicating that
such extension should not be granted. Accordingly, the concerned
authority acted upon the decision of the Hon'ble Chief Minister which
had been taken even prior to moving the file for extension of service
of respondent No. 4, and proceedings, initiated by the concerned
authority for filling up the post by way of promotion by convening the
meeting of the Screening Committee constituted for that purpose,
were closed.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-53-
th
70. On 9 April, 2026, the meeting of the Screening
High Court of H.P.
Committee was scheduled for considering the promotion of eligible
candidates to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. However, the meeting
could not be convened on account of the absence of Secretary
(Personnel) being on tour. The file was submitted on the very same
day to the Chief Secretary to indicate a suitable date to convene the
meeting of the DPC. This file moved up to the Secretary (Personnel)
on 09.04.2026 itself, who was on tour and probably for that reason
he dealt with the file on 20.04.2026 and it was submitted to the Chief
Secretary on the same day. However, on 22.04.2026, the Chief
Secretary deferred the file by putting the note "Please speak" (Pls.
Spk). Thereafter, there is silence about the movement of the file
since 22.04.2026 till 15.05.2026, and it was marked by the Secretary
(Personnel) on 15.05.2026 to the Special Secretary (Personnel),
who marked it accordingly to the next officers/officials, and
thereafter, the process for filling up the post by way of promotion was
closed on account of extension of service granted to respondent No.
4.
71. This movement of the file also indicates that the file was
deliberately deferred and a parallel process for extension of service
of respondent No. 4 was initiated on the basis of approval of the
Hon'ble Chief Minister for extension of service in favour of
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-54-
respondent No.4-Narinder Pal Singh received in the Department of
High Court of H.P.
Personnel.
72. Interestingly, both files were being dealt with by the
Department of Personnel, and the stand of the Department of
Personnel was also one and the same on the basis of which the
Department was proceeding further for finalizing the proceedings of
the DPC to fill up the post by way of promotion, but without any
plausible reason, public interest, or any justifiable reason, the
process of promotion was scuttled and extension of service was
granted to respondent No. 4 in the present case.
73. The present case is on better footings than Vishal
Sharma and Sanjeev Dhiman's case, wherein the Departmental
Promotion Committee (in short 'DPC') was not set in motion,
whereas in the present case, appropriate process had already been
undertaken by the concerned authority, and thus, findings returned
in Vishal Sharma’s case and Sanjeev Dhiman’s case are also
equally applicable to present case and the impugned action of
granting extension of service to respondent No. 4 is not sustainable.
74. It is also noticeable that the State in its reply has not
pleaded any material justifying the public interest or necessity of
extension of service of respondent No. 4 on account of some
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-55-
ongoing projects. But respondent No. 4 in his reply has made a self-
High Court of H.P.
appraisal of his competency by referring to a number of ongoing
priority works/projects which, according to him, would be adversely
affected on account of non-grant of extension of service in his favour,
but no such plea has been taken in the reply of respondent-State.
75. It is also a matter of record that it is not a case either of
the State or of respondent No. 4 that the next incumbent in queue to
be promoted as Engineer-in-Chief is or was incompetent or
incapable of performing the duty of Engineer-in-Chief, and because
of his incapacity or incompetence, any work/project of the State is
going to be adversely affected. Instead, the petitioner, without
mincing any words, has categorically pleaded his eligibility,
competency, and capability in the petition, which stand unrebutted in
the replies of the respondents. Therefore, in the present case,
neither public interest has been proved on record for extension of
service, which is the first requirement of extension of service, nor
either of the additional conditions provided in Test 1 and Test 2 in
Chapter 22 is in existence. Therefore, the impugned extension of
service granted to respondent No. 4 is illegal, null and void, and in
conflict with the pronouncements of the Courts referred supra.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-56-
76. Petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion to
High Court of H.P.
the post of Engineer-in-Chief with effect from 01.05.2026, the date
from which the post of Engineer-in-Chief was likely to be vacant on
account of retirement of respondent No. 4, and the process was at
final stage in the first week of April, 2026, which was deferred,
probably at the instance of respondent No. 4, who managed to obtain
approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister without fulfilling the
requirement for that, that too without submitting a case for extension
of service in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Chapter 22. No compelling and justifiable reason, as required, has
been brought on record for extension of service of respondent No. 4.
Therefore, in case the petitioner is found suitable to be promoted as
Engineer-in-Chief, he shall be entitled for such promotion from the
due date, that is 01.05.2026, and shall be entitled for emoluments
attached to the said post, as there is no fault on the part of petitioner
in not performing the job of Engineer-in-Chief with effect from
01.05.2026, but it was and is on account of the illegal action of the
respondents that he has been deprived or prevented from
performing the job of Engineer-in-Chief from due date. Therefore, in
case petitioner is found suitable to be promoted to the post of
Engineer-in-Chief, as held by the Apex Court in Union of India vs.
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-57-
K.V. Jankiraman and others reported in (1991)4 SCC 109 'no
High Court of H.P.
work no pay' principle shall not be applicable in the present case.
77. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed
in the following terms:-
(i) The impugned notification dated 28.04.2026
(Annexure P-6), granting extension in service to
respondent No. 4, is quashed and set aside, being
illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio .
(ii) Consequent upon the quashing of the impugned
notification (Annexure P-6), respondent No. 4
shall cease to hold the office of Engineer-in-Chief,
Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, with
immediate effect and is directed to relinquish the
charge of the said post forthwith.
(iii) Respondents-State are directed to revive,
convene, and conclude the proceedings of the
Screening/Selection Committee, initiated in April,
2026 for filling up the post of Engineer-in-Chief,
HPPWD, which were illegally deferred and closed
on account of the extension granted to respondent
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS
2026:HHC:46676
-58-
No. 4, strictly in accordance with the applicable
High Court of H.P.
criteria and rules, on or before 11.11.2026 .
(iv) In case the petitioner is found suitable and
recommended for promotion by the Screening
Committee, he shall be promoted to the post of
Engineer-in-Chief with effect from the due date,
i.e., 01.05.2026 , and shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits, including seniority, pay
fixation, and actual monetary emoluments/arrears
attached to the said post from 01.05.2026, as the
principle of 'no work, no pay' shall not be
applicable in the present case.
78. Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms
along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
th
27 October, 2026
(Pardeep)
::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 13:20:36 :::CIS