Leela Devi vs STATE OF HP
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWPOA No.1224 of 2020
Decided on: 01.09.2026
__________________________________________________________
Leela Devi .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate
vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma,
Additional Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner-Leela Devi, filed an Original
Application (M) No.444 of 2016, before Learned State
Administrative Tribunal and after the abolition of
Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court
as CWPOA No.1224 of 2020, seeking the following
reliefs:-
“7 (i) That the respondent may kindly be
directed to modify Annexure A-4
dated 19.7.2K to the extent that the
applicant was promoted to the post
of A.N.M. instead of treating her as
fresh direct appointee w.e.f.
25.07.2000.
(ii) To quash and set-aside Annexure
A-5 dated 13.08.2004 being illegal,
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
2
arbitrary and against the
constitutional provisions of law, with
all consequential benefits.
(iii) That the respondents may further be
directed to keep the seniority of the
applicant intact from the initial date
of her appointment as Dai/Midwife
i.e. 07.11.1986 onwards, for all
intents and purposes.
(iv) That the respondents may kindly be
directed to allow benefits of 4, 9 and
14 under ACPS and Grade Pay equal
to FHW.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
High Court of H.P.
2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that
the petitioner was appointed as Dai/Midwife in the
Respondent-Department on regular basis in the pay
scale of Rs.325-495/- and she joined as such on
07.11.1986. It is further averred that while working as
Dai, the petitioner applied to the Respondent-
Department for granting her the study leave for pursuing
the course of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife [referred to as
‘ANM’] and respondent No.2 issued ‘No Objection
Certificate’ to the petitioner for undergoing the said
training course on 17.04.1996, subject to the conditions
that petitioner shall undergo ANM Training Course
from an Institution recognized by Indian Nursing
Council Act, 1947; and after undergone Training
Course, the petitioner shall render five years’ service in
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
3
Respondent-Department; the petitioner shall not
and
High Court of H.P.
have any right to claim appointment on the higher
post or for grant of higher pay scale in the
Respondent-Department. It is further averred that
based on ‘No Objection Certificate’, Principal Secretary
[Ayurveda, now Ayush], approved the grant of study
leave to the petitioner for undergoing Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife Course for 01.10.1996 to 07.04.1998. It is
further averred that after undergoing Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife Training Course, the petitioner rejoined the
Respondent-Department as a Dai and she was appointed
on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, by direct
recruitment as a fresh candidate on 19.07.2000
[Annexure A-4] in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/- on
probation with the stipulation that in case the terms and
conditions were acceptable, the petitioner may join the
aforesaid post.
2(i). It is averred that though the Respondents
have appointed the petitioner as an Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife by direct recruitment on 19.07.2000 [Annexure
A-4], as a fresh candidate and upon her appointment as
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on regular basis, the petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
4
was entitled for the benefit of increment under
High Court of H.P.
FR-22 (1) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules. It is averred
that the claim of the petitioner for giving benefit of
increment under FR as aforesaid was rejected by the
Respondents on 13.04.2004 [Annexure A-5], on the
ground, that once the petitioner was appointed as
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife by direct recruitment as a
fresh candidate and had joined as such, then, the
increment under FR-22 (1) (a) (i) was not admissible
to the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner
submitted a representation dated 15.07.2016 [Annexure
A-6] with the prayer that the past-service rendered by
her as Dai may be counted towards the service
rendered as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife for granting
Proficiency Step-Up under “Assured Career Progression
Scheme” on completion of 4-9-14 years of service but this
benefit was wrongly denied to the petitioner on
27.08.2015 [Annexure A-7].
In this backdrop, the petitioner has prayed
for giving the benefit of increment under FR-22 (1) (a) (i)
on her appointment as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife and
for counting the past-service rendered by her on post
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
5
of Dai towards the service rendered on post of
High Court of H.P.
appointment as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife for giving
the Proficiency Step-Up on completion of 4-9-14 years
of service, with all consequential benefits.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the
State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated
04.10.2018.
3(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that
though the petitioner was working as Dai in the
Respondent-Department w.e.f. 07.11.1986, yet, during
her incumbency as Dai, the petitioner applied for
undergoing Training Course of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife
for which the conditional ‘No Objection Certificate’ was
issued by Respondent-Department on 17.04.1996
stipulating that the Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Training
Course should be undergone from an Institute which
was recognized under Indian Nursing Council Act;
and after passing Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Training
Course, the petitioner shall serve the Department for five
years; and the Respondent-Department shall have no
liability to appoint her on higher post or to give higher
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
6
pay scale after undergoing the said course.
3(ii). It is further averred that the Respondent-
High Court of H.P.
State decided to make fresh recruitment for the post
of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in the year 2000 and
being eligible, the petitioner applied for the post and
after due selection, she was appointed as Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife on 19.07.2000 [Annexure A-4] by the
Respondent-Department but the petitioner accepted
her appointment and she joined as such on 25.07.2000
without any protest and the instant petition has
been filed after a lapse of 18 years from the date
of appointment/joining on 25.07.2000 and the claim
for granting benefit under FR-22 (1) (a) (i) and for
counting the past-service rendered on post of Dai
towards service rendered on post of Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife for granting Proficiency Step-Up on completion
of 4-9-14 years’ service by clubbing the unequal post(s)
was not tenable. In this backdrop, the prayer was
made to dismiss the writ petition.
REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
4. Petitioner had filed rejoinder reiterating the
claim in the writ petition.
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
7
5. Heard, Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate vice
High Court of H.P.
Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the petitioner and
Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate
General, for the Respondents.
ANALYSIS:
6. Taking into account the entirety of facts
and circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view, that the claim of the petitioner for granting the
benefit of FR-22 (1) (a) (i) from the date of her
appointment by treating aforesaid appointment as
promotion from the date of appointment/joining as
an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife w.e.f. 19.07.2000/
25.07.2000 is not tenable; and the claim for counting
the service rendered on the post of Dai with the service
rendered on post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife for
granting benefit of Proficiency Step-Up on completion of
4-9-14 years’ service, is not tenable, for the following
reasons:-
CLAIM FOR INCREMENT UNDER FR-22 (1) (a) (i)
IMPERMISSIBLE:
7. Indisputably, the petitioner joined service
as regular Dai on 07.11.1986. During her incumbency
as Dai, the petitioner was granted a conditional
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
8
‘No Objection Certificate’ on 17.04.1996 for undergoing
High Court of H.P.
the Training Course of Auxiliary Nurse, by the petitioner
by granting her study leave as per order dated
17.04.1996/19.04.1996 [Annexure A-1] for the period
from w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 01.04.1998 and after
completing the Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Training
Course, the petitioner rejoined on post of Dai in
the Respondent-Department. While serving as a Dai,
the Respondent-Department decided to fill some posts
of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in the Respondent-
Department and petitioner being eligible, applied for the
post and was selected as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, by
way of direct recruitment, as a fresh candidate on
19.07.2000 [Annexure A-4] and she joined as such on
25.07.2000. Claim of the petitioner for granting the
benefit of FR-22 (1) (a) (i) on appointment as Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife w.e.f. 19.07.2000/25.07.2000 [Annexure
A-4], is not tenable, for the reason, firstly, perusal of
FR-22 (1) (a) (i) indicates that this incremental benefit
is to be given in case, a person fulfills the eligibility
conditions prescribed in the relevant Recruitment
and Promotion Rules; and secondly, nothing has been
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
9
placed on record by the petitioner to establish that
High Court of H.P.
the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife expressly conferred eligibility
to incumbents who are working on post of Dai in
Respondent-Department and had undergone Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife Training Course upon completion of
Course were to be promoted or appointed
automatically, on post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife”
without undergoing the selection process for
appointment or promotion alongwith other eligible
candidates and thirdly, in the absence of any express
mandate in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules
conferring automatic eligibility that a Dai who had
undergone Training Course of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife,
shall be automatically appointed or promoted as
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife and absence of
any express mandate in the Rules, the claim of the
petitioner for grant of increment under FR-22 (1)
(a) (i); was not tenable and thirdly, even a perusal of ‘No
Objection Certificate’ dated 17.04.1996 issued by
Respondent-Department enabling the petitioner, to
undergo Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Training Course
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
10
was conditional with the specific stipulation that after
High Court of H.P.
undergoing the Training Course of Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife, the petitioner shall have no claim whatsoever
for appointment on higher post or for grant of higher
pay scale by Respondent-Department; and fourthly,
the conditions in ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated
17.04.1996 have not been questioned by the petitioner;
and fifthly, even the petitioner has accepted and acted
upon the conditional ‘No Objection Certificate’ then,
the petitioner cannot turn around and seek automatic
appointment or promotion as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife
contrary to condition No.(iii) of said ‘No Objection
Certificate’ and sixthly, it is not the case of the petitioner
that other incumbent(s) who were working a regular
Dai in the Respondent-Department and were sent for
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Training Course, after
completing the said Training Course were automatically
be promoted or appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife;
and seventhly, nothing has been placed on record by
the petitioner to establish that any similarly placed
or junior incumbent, who was appointed on the post
of a Dai and was granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ for
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
11
undergoing Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Training Course
High Court of H.P.
by Respondent-Department, upon completion of Training
Course, was automatically or promoted as Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife and/or were granted the incremental
benefit under FR-22 (1) (a) (i); and eighthly , the
service rendered on post of Dai cannot be counted
towards the service rendered on post of an Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife unless the Recruitment and Promotion
Rules for post of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife expressly
provided for counting post-service for service benefits
and the petitioner has failed to make out a case
under the Statutory Rules; and ninthly, in absence
of any material particulars, this Court cannot accede
to the prayer of the petitioner for granting benefit of
increment under the aforesaid Fundamental Rules
and, therefore, the rejection order dated 20.10.2004
[Annexure A-5], does not suffer from any infirmity; and
lastly, the Respondent-Department had initiated process
for filling the posts of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, by way
of direct recruitment in the year 2000 and the petitioner
being eligible was selected and appointed as Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife by way of direct recruitment as a fresh
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
12
candidate, on the basis of orders dated 19.07.2000
High Court of H.P.
[Annexure A-4] and she joined as such on 25.07.2000,
without any protest or demur. The petitioner having
accepted the terms and conditions of offer of
appointment as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, by direct
recruitment, as a fresh candidate, cannot turn around
and claim a different status and such a claim is not
tenable in view of the principle of acquiescence and
the broader principle of law mandated by Three Judges
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 9 SCC 322,
titled as State of Uttar Pradesh through its Secretary
and others v. Meraj Ahmad that after accepting
fresh appointment, the claim for counting past service
for granting service benefits is impermissible.
Resultantly, the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and
is accordingly turned down.
CLAIM FOR PROFICIENCY STEP-UP AFTER 4-9-14
YEARS BY CLUBBING SERVICE RENDERED AS DAI
AND AUXILIARY NURSE MIDWIFE:
8. Claim of the petitioner for granting the
Proficiency Step-Up on completion of 4-9-14 years of
service as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife by clubbing the
service rendered on post of Dai w.e.f. 07.11.1986
followed by regular service rendered on post of an
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
13
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife from 19.07.2000, is not
High Court of H.P.
tenable, for the reason, firstly, nothing has been placed
on record by the petitioner to establish that the
service rendered on lower post [as Dai] and the
service rendered on post of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife
[higher post] is countable for granting the step-up
benefit under the “Assured Career Progression Scheme”
notified on 15.12.1998; and secondly, in terms of the
“Assured Career Progression Scheme” dated 15.12.1998,
it is only the “same post or posts in the same cadre”
is countable for grant of Proficiency Step-Up; and thirdly,
the claim of the petitioner for clubbing the service
rendered on post of Dai with the service rendered on
post of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife for grant of
Proficiency Step-Up cannot be granted dehors the
“Assured Career Progression Scheme” notified by the
State Authorities; and fourthly, nothing has been placed
on record by the petitioner to establish that the
service rendered on two different posts [Dai vis-à-vis
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife] was countable for grant of
Proficiency Step-Up under “Assured Career Progression
Scheme” notified by the Government on 15.12.1998; and
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
14
in terms of Para 5 (h) of the Reply-Affidavit, the
lastly,
High Court of H.P.
State Authorities have granted the “Assured Career
Progression Scheme” benefits on completion of 8 years’
service as Dai in the year 1994 and she has been
granted “Assured Career Progression Scheme” benefits
for service rendered on post and in cadre of an Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife in the year 2008 [after counting 8 years’
service as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife from 25.07.2000
under “Assured Career Progression Scheme” dated
15.12.1998 and she has been granted Assured Career
Progression Scheme benefit on completion of 9 years’
service in terms of the “New Assured Career Progression
Scheme” dated 09.08.2012 [after adjusting earlier
benefits] w.e.f. 2009 and once the petitioner has been
granted three benefits under “Assured Career
Progression Scheme”, therefore, the claim for
granting additional benefits dehors the Assured Career
Progression Scheme is impermissible. In this
backdrop, the claim for additional Proficiency Step-Up
benefits, being devoid of any merit, is turned down.
DELAY AND LACHES:
9. Petitioner joined the service as Dai [Class-IV]
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
15
on 07.11.1986. While working as Dai, the petitioner
High Court of H.P.
applied for direct recruitment and she was appointed
as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife as a fresh candidate
on regular basis on 19.07.2000 [Annexure A-4] and after
accepting the terms and conditions, she joined as
such on 25.07.2000 without any protest or demur.
Moreover, the petitioner slept over her rights and
remedies for 18 years, since her appointment-joining
in the year 2000 till filing of the instant petition on
08.11.2016. The petitioner having slept over her rights
and remedies for 18 years, is in itself a ground for
refraining from showing any indulgence to the
petitioner in view of the principle of law mandated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh versus Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3612; Chief Executive Officer and others
versus S. Lalitha and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
916; and H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah
since deceased by LRs, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54,
mandating that once a claim manifestly suffers from
delay and laches and no cogent and convincing
explanation has been spelt out for the belated claim,
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
16
therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open
High Court of H.P.
and re-invoke her remedy belatedly and that when,
the claims dehors the Fundamental Rules and the
“Assured Career Progression Scheme”, is not tenable.
RELIANCE ON JUDGMENTS-MISPLACED:
10. To buttress her claim, the petitioner has
placed reliance on the judgments Hem Chand Versus
State of H.P. & others, 2014 (3) Him L.R. 1962 and
Sanjay Dhar Versus J&K Public Service Commission
and another, (2000) 8 SCC 182 that once the
benefits have been wrongly denied to the petitioner,
therefore, this Court may show indulgence.
The principle of law, outlined in aforesaid
judgments, cannot come to the assistance of the
petitioner, for the reason, that in the instant case,
the petitioner has failed to establish that she was
wrongly appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on
19.07.2000 but upon completion of Training Course as
an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, she had an automatic
right for being promoted as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife
under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In the
absence of any disclosure in writ petition or rejoinder,
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
17
carving out a right on the basis of Statutory Rules
High Court of H.P.
for automatic appointment or promotion as an Auxiliary
Nurse Midwife, without facing the selection process
mandated in the Rules [non-selection post], therefore,
accepting the claim of the petitioner, shall defeat the
very constitutional ethos of public employment
embedded in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. Moreover, the aforesaid judgments are
distinguishable and are not applicable to the fact-
situation of instant case. Resultantly, the reliance placed
on the aforesaid judgments is misplaced.
11. No other points were raised or argued.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION:
12. In view of above discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is
dismissed , in the following terms:-
(i) Instant writ petition i.e. CWPOA No.1224 of
2020, tilted as Leela Devi v. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others is dismissed;
(ii) Impugned order dated 20.10.2004 [Annexure
A-5] is upheld;
(iii) Claim of petitioner for granting Increment
under FR-22 (1) (a) (i) by treating her
appointment as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife
as promotion automatically; in absence of
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37387 REPORTABLE
18
any provision in Recruitment and Promotion
Rules, without facing the selection process,
High Court of H.P.
cannot be acceded to and is accordingly
turned down ;
(iv) Claim of petitioner Proficiency Step-Up by
clubbing unequal post(s) of Dai vis-à-vis
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife dehors the “Assured
Career Progression Scheme” in terms of the
“New Assured Career Progression Scheme(s)”
is untenable and is disallowed;
(v) Claim for additional “Assured Career
Progression Scheme” benefits, when, three
benefits already stand granted is turned
down; and
(v) Parties to bear their own costs.
In aforesaid terms, instant petition stands
dismissed alongwith all pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 01, 2026
[Bhardwaj]
::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2026 18:46:52 :::CIS