Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Engineer-in-Chief’s 6-Month Extension, Restarts Promotion Process Over Missing Public-Interest Grounds

Respondent No. 4, Engineer-in-Chief (ENC) in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, was due to retire on 30 April 2026.

The Department had initiated proceedings to fill the anticipated vacancy by promotion and prepared a Screening Committee memorandum identifying eligible Chief Engineers, including the petitioner.

The Committee meeting was deferred; the State then granted respondent No. 4 a six-month extension in service from 1 May 2026, and the promotion process was closed on the ground that no vacancy remained.

The petitioner challenged the extension, contending that it was contrary to the governing policy and that he was eligible for consideration for promotion.

Chapter 22 of the Himachal Pradesh Handbook on Personnel Matters provides that extension or re-employment beyond superannuation should ordinarily not be considered and is justified only in very rare and exceptional circumstances. It must be clearly in the public interest and satisfy at least one of two conditions: that other officers are not sufficiently ready to take over, or that the retiring officer is of outstanding merit.

The Handbook also requires the prescribed procedure for processing such proposals, including consideration of eligible candidates and relevant service material.

In Court on its own motion v. State of H.P., CWPIL No. 201 of 2017, the High Court directed strict compliance with Chapter 22 and Fundamental Rule 56(d).

Vishal Sharma v. State of H.P. and Sanjeev Dhiman v. State of H.P. applied those requirements and held that extension or re-employment unsupported by the prescribed procedure and recorded justification could not stand.

Although the Government’s decision on extension is ordinarily not substituted by the Court, it remains reviewable where arbitrary or contrary to the governing rules and instructions.

The record showed that the Department had identified eligible officers, prepared the Screening Committee memorandum and begun the process of filling the anticipated vacancy.

The extension file, however, contained no substantiated public-interest justification and did not establish either of the two required conditions; the prescribed pro forma was also not completed.

The State’s reply likewise supplied no material demonstrating the necessity for extension. Respondent No. 4’s assertions about ongoing projects appeared in his own reply, not the State’s, and were not supported as a justification satisfying Chapter 22.

In these circumstances, the extension was inconsistent with the governing requirements, and the resulting closure of the promotion process was unsustainable.

The petitioner’s eligibility entitled him to consideration, not automatic promotion; promotion from the due date was conditional on the Screening Committee finding him suitable.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to relinquish the ENC post forthwith. The State was directed to revive and conclude the Screening Committee proceedings by 11 November 2026.

If the petitioner is found suitable and recommended, he must be promoted with effect from 1 May 2026 and receive consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation and monetary arrears; the “no work, no pay” principle was held inapplicable in the circumstances.