Naginder Singh vs STATE OF HP
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:45846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
High Court of H.P.
CWPOA No.5779 of 2019
th
Decided on: 14 October, 2026
Naginder Singh (deceased) through his LRs. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P and others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
_______________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma,
Additional Advocate General for
respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar,
Advocate for respondents No.2
and 3.
None for respondent No.4.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)
The original petitioner Naginder Singh, by way of
present petition had prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-
“A) That the selection of respondent no.4 to the post of
Foreman (Special) vide annexure A-7, may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
B) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to
promote the applicant to the post of Foreman (Special)
w.e.f 27.7.2015 with all consequential benefits.”
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
2
2. The original petitioner, who died on 28.05.2021 got
High Court of H.P.
substituted by his legal representatives namely, Kamla Devi, wife
and Arun Kumar, son on 30.09.2022.
3. For the purpose of adjudicating the claim in the present
petition, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the writ
petition originally filed.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case
are that the petitioner was appointed as Oil and Cleaner with
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short the respondent-
Board) on 14.11.1985 and was posted at Binwa Power House,
Uttrala, Baijnath, on regular basis. Thereafter, he was promoted as
Electrician in January 1989 and was posted at Bhabanagar, District
Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. In August, 2005, he was promoted as
Foreman and posted at Chaba Power House, Sunni, District Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh. As per the Notification dated 02.05.1996
(Annexure A-1), the respondent-Board had notified the Recruitment
and Promotion Regulations in respect of the post of Foreman
(Special) and as per these Regulations, the post of Foreman
(Special) was to be filled up by promotion from amongst the
Foreman in the respective categories/cadre having minimum eight
years regular service in the grade. Since there were only six posts of
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
3
Foreman (Special), which were to be filled up by promotion, the
High Court of H.P.
respondent-Board had adopted 13 point Model Roster for promotion.
In the final seniority list of Foreman, Power House (E), as it stood on
01.01.2011 (Annexure A-3), the petitioner figures at Serial No.5. As
per 13 point Model Roster adopted by the respondent-Board, a
meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the ‘DPC’)
was convened on 06.03.2012, when persons at Serial Nos.1, 2 and 6
as per final seniority list of Foreman, Power House (E) as it stood on
01.01.2011 (Annexure A-3) were promoted to the post of Foreman
(Special), as per the Model Roster for promotion appended with the
petition as Annexure A-4 by applying fourth cycle. As per fourth
cycle, the first two posts were to be filled up from (unreserved
category) General category candidates and the third post was
reserved for Scheduled Caste (for short ‘SC’) category and a person,
namely, Ramesh Chand, who was at Serial No.6 and belongs to SC
category, was promoted to the post of Foreman (Special).
Thereafter, no DPC was convened till 2015.
5. It has further been averred that as per the provisional
seniority list of Foreman, as it stood on 01.01.2015 (Annexure A-5),
the name of the petitioner was at Serial No.2 and since two posts
were lying vacant of Foreman (Special), he was expecting that his
name will be considered in the DPC to be held in the months of April
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
4
and May, 2015. However, the respondent-Board ignored his
High Court of H.P.
legitimate and rightful claim for promotion to the post of Foreman
(Special) as per provisional seniority list of Foreman on the basis of
which promotions were made and respondent No.4, who was at
Serial No.9 was considered for promotion to the post of Foreman
(Special) by adopting the fifth cycle, which provides that the first
post will go to General category (unreserved category) and the
second post will go to the SC category. The petitioner has placed on
record the copy of promotion order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure A-
7) in respect of respondent No.4, who was at Serial No.9 in the
provisional seniority list (Annexure A-5, page 22).
6. The petitioner made a representation to the
respondent-Board to make his promotion vide Annexure A-8, but the
respondent-Board did not take any decision and the petitioner has,
therefore, approached this Court by way of present petition. The
petitioner has averred in the petition that the action on the part of
the respondent-Board by not considering him for the post of
Foreman (Special) is illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation
of the settled principles of service jurisprudence. Further, the action
on the part of the respondent-Board while promoting respondent
No.4 to the post of Foreman (Special) is illegal, unjust,
unconstitutional and in violation of the regulations and Model Roster
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
5
applicable for promotion to the post of Foreman (Special) in the
High Court of H.P.
cadre service. The respondent-Board either has not followed 13
point Model Roster or has deliberately ignored the legitimate claim
of the petitioner and there was no question of giving promotion to
the SC category candidate when the promotion had to be made on
the basis of the settled seniority position and further, since the post
of Foreman (Special) was a non-selection post, it had to be filled up
only on the basis of seniority, notwithstanding adverse entries in the
personal file of the petitioner. Once the petitioner was admittedly
senior to respondent No.4 and there were no adverse entries in his
personal file, the respondent-Board erred in failing to consider him
for promotion to the post of Foreman (Special) and thus, prayed for
quashing the promotion of respondent No.4 as per office order
dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure A-7) with a direction to the
respondent-Board to promote him to the post of Foreman (Special)
with effect from 27.07.2015, with all consequential benefits.
7. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed reply to the petition and
in preliminary submissions submitted that the petitioner is presently
working as Foreman, Power House Electrical (PHE), with effect from
19.08.2005. The next promotional channel of the petitioner is to the
post of Foreman (Special) (PHE) as per the R&P Rules of Foreman
(Special), framed/notified by the Board, vide Notification dated
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
6
02.05.1996 and amended vide Notification dated 20.02.2010. At
High Court of H.P.
present, six number of posts of Foreman (Special) (PHE) are
sanctioned in the Board, which are filled up 100% by promotion
from amongst the eligible Foreman (PHE) in order of seniority in the
feeder post and the reservation roster applicable in the Board, vide
Office Memorandum dated 13.10.1998, specifically meant for
promotion for cadre strength up to 13 posts. It has further been
averred that during July 2015, one vacant post of Foreman (Special)
(PHE) has been filled up by promoting respondent No.4, who
belongs to Scheduled Caste reserved category, vide order dated
27.07.2015. As per seniority list of Foreman (PHE) as it stood on
01.01.2015 (Annexure R-3), the name of respondent No.4 was
appearing at Serial No.9, besides point earmarked to SC category
candidate in the reservation roster dated 13.10.1998 upto cadre
strength of 13 posts. The respondent-Board has filled up two
th
numbers of posts of Foreman (Special) by rotation in 5 cycle,
wherein first post goes to General category candidate and second
post goes to SC category candidate and two Foreman (PHE) Shri
Prakash Chand and respondent No.4 have been promoted to the
post of Foreman (Special) (PHE), vide order dated 11.05.2015 and
27.07.2015 respectively, against above points. Since respondent
No.4 has been promoted against earmarked post by following
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
7
reservation point, there is no question arising regarding injustice
High Court of H.P.
caused to the petitioner. Further, the respondent-Board is a public
sector undertaking and has to go by Rules and regulations and so
far as the present petition is concerned, no case has been made out
by the petitioner and as such his claim is not maintainable.
8. On merits, it has been submitted that the DPC was held
during March 2012 to fill up three vacant posts of Foreman (Special)
(PHE) from amongst eligible Foreman (PHE). It has further been
submitted that promotion has been made as per roster point and
th
rotation-wise in 4 cycle of model roster upto 13 posts, wherein the
third post goes to the SC category and one Shri Ramesh Chand,
Foreman (PHE) was promoted against the earmarked post specified
in the reservation policy adopted by the Board, as per order dated
13.10.1998. It has also been averred that two posts of Foreman
(Special) (PHE) were to be filled up and only one DPC was held on
04.04.2015 for the current year, wherein eight numbers of Foreman
(PHE), including the petitioner, have been considered for promotion
to the post of Foreman (Special) (PHE) and no DPC during July 2015
has been held in the Board and vide DPC dated 04.04.2015, against
the availability of two vacant posts of Foreman (Special) (PHE), two
posts have been filled up by promotion from feeder category (i.e.,
th
Foreman, PHE) by rotation in 5 cycle, wherein first post goes to
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
8
General category and second post goes to SC category, and two
High Court of H.P.
Foreman (PHE), namely, Shri Prakash Chand and Shri Jagdish Chand
(respondent No.4) have been promoted to the post of Foreman
(Special) (PHE), vide orders dated 11.05.2015 and 27.07.2015
respectively. The representation made by the petitioner was
considered by respondent No.3 and the report was sent to
respondent No.2, vide letter dated 09.11.2015, but meanwhile, the
petitioner had filed the present petition before this Court.
9. Respondents No.1 and 4 had adopted the reply filed by
respondents No.2 and 3.
10. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by
respondents No.2 and 3 and controverted the averments made
therein.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
also gone through the record carefully.
12. It is not in dispute that when the DPC was convened on
04.04.2015, two posts of Foreman (Special) were lying vacant. As
per the seniority list of Foreman (PHE) as it stood on 01.01.2015
(Annexure A-5, page 22) the petitioner was at Serial No.2 and
Annexure R-3, page 51). It is also not in dispute that before
convening the DPC, the earlier DPC was convened on 06.03.2012, to
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
9
fill up three posts of Foreman (Special) and as per the roster point
High Court of H.P.
th
and rotation wise, 4 cycle of Model Roster was adopted.
13. It is apt to reproduce the roster point, (Annexure A-2,
page 13), which also finds mention at page 50 of the paper book as
under:-
st nd rd th th th th th th th th th th
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Cadre
strength
Initial
recruitment
1. UR UR UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
2. UR UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
3. UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
4. UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
5. UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
6. UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
7. SC
UR UR UR UR UR ST
8. UR
9. UR UR UR UR UR ST
10. UR UR UR UR ST
11. UR UR UR ST
12. UR UR ST
ST
13. UR
Note: 1. For cadres 2 to 13 posts the roster is to be read from
entry 1 under column Cadre Strength till the last post and
then horizontally till the last entry in the horizontal raw i.e.
like “L”.
2. All the posts of the cadre are to be earmarked for the
categories shown under column initial appointment. While
initial filling up will be by the earmarked category, the
replacement against any of the post in the cadre shall be
by rotation as shown horizontally against the last post of
the cadre.
3. The relevant rotation by the indicated reserved
category could be skipped over if it leads to more than
50% representation of reserved category.”
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
10
14. A perusal of the aforesaid roster clearly reveals that
High Court of H.P.
three posts of Foreman (Special) were filled up taking the roster
th
point from 4 cycle, in which two posts were to be filled up from
unreserved category and third post from SC category. As per the
final seniority list of Foreman, as it stood on 01.01.2011, a person
junior to the petitioner, namely, Ramesh Chand, Serial No.6 was
recommended for promotion to the post of Foreman (Special), since
third post was to be filled up from SC category to which he belongs
and the petitioner was at Serial No.5. It is relevant to mention here
that after the promotion of Sh. Ramesh Chand and two other
persons, namely, Khem Chand and Kamal Prakash, who were at
Serial Nos.1 and 2 in the final seniority list of Foreman as it stood on
01.01.2011, the provisional seniority list of Foreman was again
circulated, as it stood on 01.01.2015, in which, the petitioner was at
Serial No.2 and respondent No.4 was at Serial No.9. As per the
Model Roster point 13, which is not disputed by the respondent-
Board, after the posts had fallen vacant, two posts were to be filled
th
up from 4 cycle, which were meant for General category
th
candidates, but the respondent-Board, instead of completing the 4
th
cycle had jumped to the 5 cycle, which is illegal, arbitrary and
discriminatory.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
11
15. As per the note appended to the Model Roster for
High Court of H.P.
promotion for cadre strength up to 12 posts, the roster is to read
from entry one under column Cadre Strength till the last post and
then horizontally till the last entry in the horizontal row, i.e. like 'L'.
th
However, the respondent-Board, instead of following the 4 cycle
th
had jumped to 5 cycle, which is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
th
In case 4 cycle was followed in continuation of last promotion since
Cadre Strength of only six posts of Foreman (Special) exists in the
respondent-Board, two posts were to be filled up from unreserved
category i.e. General category and since the petitioner was at Serial
No.2 of the seniority list of Foreman as it stood on 01.01.2015, he
ought to have been promoted as Foreman (Special) instead of
respondent No.4.
16. The petitioner when earlier was not considered for
promotion to the post of Foreman (Special) and junior to him was
promoted did not rake up the issue for the reason that as per the
Model Roster for promotion, the third post was reserved for SC
category candidate and when the DPC was convened again and
respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Foreman (Special), he
had made representation to the respondent-Board to make his
promotion as Foreman (Special), but when no decision was taken
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
12
thereon and he approached this Court by way of the present
High Court of H.P.
petition.
17. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel
representing the petitioner that in case no sanctity is given to the
Model Roster for promotion for cadre strength up to 12 posts, the
very purpose of issuing the said Model Roster is frustrated and the
th
respondent-Board has wrongly jumped to 5 cycle, while making
promotion to the post of Foreman (Special) without completing the
th
4 cycle. The said submission is correct and as per the findings
returned above, the petitioner was to be considered for the post of
th
Foreman (Special) by adopting the 4 cycle from the stage when
last promotion was made and was incomplete and as per the roster
point, the posts up to sixth point were to be filled up and thereafter
the same had to be followed in 'L' shape, till the last entry in the
horizontal row. However, the respondent-Board did not adopt that
procedure, which is not only contrary to the Model Roster for
promotion, but also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
for the reason that the rightful claim of the petitioner for promotion
to the post of Foreman (Special), has been denied and as such,
th
promotion of respondent No.4 made while adopting 5 cycle, is
illegal and as such, is quashed.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
13
18. Learned counsel representing the respondent-Board has
High Court of H.P.
vehemently argued that since respondent No.4 has been promoted
th
being a reserved category candidate while applying 5 cycle, no
illegality has been committed by the respondent-Board. However,
the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that once the
th th
4 cycle was not complete upto 6 post and thereafter to apply
horizontally as per the note appended in the Model Roster, the
th
respondent-Board could not have jumped to 5 cycle and in case
the said submission is accepted, then the very purpose of issuing
the Model Roster, to be applied in case of cadre strength of 12
posts, is of no utility.
19. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and
impugned office order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure A-7) issued by
the respondent-Board while making promotion of respondent No.4
to the post of Foreman (Special) (PHE) is quashed and set aside and
the respondent-Board is directed to promote the petitioner to the
post of Foreman (Special) (PHE) with effect from 27.07.2015, with
all consequential benefits, i.e. seniority, increments, promotions and
other service benefits. Needful shall be done by the respondent-
Board within three months from today. Since the original petitioner
has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record,
the benefits be released in favour of the legal representatives. In
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS
2026:HHC:45846
14
case the arrears on account of promotion are not released in favour
High Court of H.P.
of the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry
interest @ 6% per annum from today till its realization.
20. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to
costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
th
14 October, 2026 Judge
(naveen)
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:49 :::CIS