Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 19.11.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 19 November, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2025:HHC:39071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.626 of 2024
Decided on: 19.11.2025
_________________________________________________________________
.
Kailash Chand and Anr. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
of
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Hirdaya Ram and Mr. Suresh
Singh Saini, Advocates.
rt
For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate
General for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting convened on 04.04.2011 considered the petitioners for promotion to the posts of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service (HPAS) against vacancies of the year 2010 and accordingly made its recommendations. The recommendations could not be accepted and acted upon owing to litigations and orders passed therein. Respondent-
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:39071 State however, promoted the petitioners as HPAS on ad hoc basis on 09.11.2011. After finalization of litigation, review DPC was convened on 14.11.2019. The review DPC's .
recommendations qua the petitioners remained the same.
The recommendations were accepted by the Competent Authority and petitioners' regular promotion order was issued on 02.12.2019. They were ordered to be treated as promoted of notionally w.e.f. 09.11.2011 to 01.12.2019 and on actual basis w.e.f. 02.12.2019.
rt The Petitioners seeks direction to the respondents to order their regular promotion w.e.f. the year 2010 on the count that DPC in its meeting convened on 04.04.2011 and also in review DPC meeting convened on 14.11.2019 had considered their cases for promotion against vacancies of the year 2010. Prayer has also been made for quashing and setting aside the office orders passed by the respondents on 09.11.2011 & 02.12.2019 and also the order whereby, petitioners' representation, seeking such relief, was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS -3- 2025:HHC:39071
3. The Case
3(i) In the year 2010, respondent-Department initiated
the process for convening meeting of DPC for making .
promotions to the posts of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services (HPAS). Petitioners belonged to feeder category of Non-Tehsildar and were eligible for promotion. It appears that documentation for the purpose of convening meeting of the of DPC could not be completed. In the meanwhile, CWP No. 491 of 2011 (Surinder Mohan Saini & Ors Vs. State of H.P and rt others ) was instituted. Following order was passed in the said writ petition on 21.01.2011:-
"The respondents No. 1 to 3 are permitted to hold DPC but result thereof shall not be declared without leave of the Court"
The DPC's meeting for making promotions to the post of HPAS from Non-Tehsildar Category was convened on 04.04.2011. The committee considered the petitioners for promotion against the vacancies of the year 2010 and accordingly made its recommendations. Respondents did not process the minutes of the DPC in view of the interim order passed on 21.01.2011 in Surinder Mohan Saini.
3(ii) Interim order dated 21.01.2011 passed in
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:39071
Surinder Mohan Saini was modified on 18.06.2011, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"8. The learned Additional Advocate General brings to .
the notice of the Court that the DPC has already been held on 4.4.2011 and only the case of those who have joined the service upto the year 2000/2002 have been considered. In that event, it is made clear that the case of the private respondents shall be excluded for the time being. In case more candidates are to be of considered, the same shall be considered in accordance with seniority considering the case of the private respondents alongwith those candidates who rt have joined the service in the year 2000/2002. There will also be a direction to the Government to take appropriate action in the light of the above order. It is made clear that in case the cases of the private respondents have also been recommended by the DPC, for the time being, further proceedings in their case shall be deferred. In case those vacancies are also to be filled up, it will be open to the Government and the DPC to hold fresh DPC for filling up those posts. It is made clear that the arrangements as above shall be provisional and subject to the result of the writ petition. The interim order dated 21.1.2011 in CMP No. 552 of 2011 will stand modified to the extent."
3(iv) According to the respondents, in view of above order, the minutes of the DPC convened on 04.04.2011 were required to be reviewed as S/Sh. Bachan Singh and Krishan Chand, who had been recommended by the DPC for ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:39071 promotion to the post of HPAS in its meeting held on 04.04.2011, had to be excluded from the recommendations.
Further, one Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, on the strength of his past .
military service, was required to be considered by the DPC for his promotion to the post of HPAS against the vacancies of the year 2010. For complying with the Court order dated 18.06.2011, respondents scheduled the meeting of review of DPC for 03.08.2011.
In the meanwhile, Sh. Bachan Singh preferred rt Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19750 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein vide order dated 01.08.2011, status quo was directed to be maintained. In view of status quo order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, review DPC could not be convened.
3(v) The respondent-Department was statedly facing acute shortage of officers. Accordingly on 20.10.2011, a proposal was moved by the Department for approval of the competent authority to appoint the officers belonging to Non-
Tehsildar Category in HPAS on ad hoc basis. The Competent Authority approved the proposal on 08.11.2011.
Consequently, several officers including the petitioners were ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:39071 appointed in HPAS on ad hoc basis under a notification issued on 09.11.2011. The ad hoc promotion was with the rider that the same will shall not confer any right upon the .
officers for regular promotion, continuation or seniority in HPAS and incumbents shall be reverted to their parent Department, at any time if vacancies ceased to exist in HPAS Cadre. In compliance to this order, both the petitioners of joined HPAS on 10.11.2011 and 11.11.2011, respectively.
The petitioners continued to serve as HPAS officers on the rt basis of their ad hoc promotions.
3(vi) After finalization of Court cases, the respondents processed the matter for convening the review DPC. The same was accordingly convened on 14.11.2019. The DPC once again considered the petitioners for promotion against vacancies of the year 2010 and made its recommendations.
The minutes of review DPC, convened on 14.11.2019 were accepted by the Competent Authority, whereafter, the respondent-Department issued notification on 02.12.2019, giving notional promotions to the petitioners w.e.f.
09.11.2011 i.e. from the date of their ad hoc promotion
and actual promotion from the date of issuance of order
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:39071
dated 02.12.2019.
3(vii) Petitioners represented on 04.03.2020, seeking
notional promotion against the posts of HPAS w.e.f. the year .
2010. The respondents rejected this request on 29.07.2021.
Two years later, petitioners instituted Dile Ram and Another Vs. State of HP and Ors2, assailing rejection of their representation under order dated 29.07.2021, inter alia, of praying for direction to the respondents to review their promotion order dated 02.12.2019. The writ petition was rt disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the representation afresh and pass a speaking order. The respondents vide a detailed order passed on 03.11.2023, rejected petitioners' representation. In the above background, petitioners have instituted this writ petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:-
"i) To quash and set-aside impugned order dated 03-11-
2023 i.e. Annexure P-4.
ii) To quash and set-aside impugned notification dated 09- 11-2011 (Annexure P-7) vide which the petitioners have been promoted on adhoc basis rather than on regular basis for no fault of the petitioners.
iii) To quash and set-aside impugned notification dated 02- 12-2019 (Annexure P-11) qua the petitioners and direct the respondent No. I to order the regular promotion of 2 CWP No.4667 of 2023, decided on 06.10.2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:39071 the petitioners w.e.f. the year 2010 as recommended by the DPC dated 04-04-2011(Annexure P-5) and dated 14- 11-2019 (Annexure P-9).
iv) To quash and set-aside office order dated 27-01-2020 .
(Annexure P-12) regarding fixation of the pay and direct the respondent No. 1, 2 and 4 to order the fixation of the pay of the petitioners giving the benefit from the year 2010 in view of the recommendation of the DPC dated 04-04-2011(Annexure P-5) and 14-11-2019 (Annexure P-
9)."
of
4. Consideration 4(i) It is an admitted position that the DPC was rt convened on 04.04.2011 for considering the eligible officers belonging to Non-Tehsildar Category for promotion against the vacancies in HPAS cadre. In its deliberations, the DPC had recommended promotion of the petitioners to HPAS against the vacancies for the year 2010. The recommendations could not be accepted or acted upon in view of litigation which ensued and the orders passed therein.
It was on 20.10.2011 that the competent authority accepted the proposal of the Department for promoting officers belonging to Non-Tehsildar Category on ad hoc basis in HPAS. Consequently, notification was issued on 09.11.2011, promoting ten such officers on HPAS cadre on ad hoc basis, names of the petitioners figure at Sr. Nos.9 and 10 of the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:39071 notification. Most of the officers whose names figure in this notification i.e. who were promoted as HPAS on ad hoc basis, had also been recommended by the DPC in its meeting .
convened on 04.04.2011 against the vacancies for the year 2010. After the litigation came to an end, the review DPC was convened on 14.11.2019. Review DPC's recommendations were accepted by the Competent Authority and consequently, of notification was issued on 02.12.2019, giving notional promotion to the petitioners as also other similarly situated rt officers w.e.f. 09.11.2019 and on actual basis with immediate effect i.e. from the date of issuance of notification dated 02.12.2019.
4(ii) The contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners urged is that since the DPC in its meeting dated 04.04.2011 as also on 14.11.2019 had considered and recommended the cases of the petitioners for promotion to HPAS against the vacancies of the year 2010, they were required to be given notional promotion to HPAS w.e.f. the year 2010. The said assertion cannot be accepted in the instant case:-
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS - 10 - 2025:HHC:39071
4(ii)(a) The petitioners alongwith others though were
recommended by the DPC for promotion to HPAS against the vacancies for the year 2010, but the recommendations could .
not be accepted by the Competent Authority till the year 2019 in view of the litigation and the orders passed therein from time to time. The Competent Authority approved the proposal of respondent-Department for making ad hoc of promotions in the meanwhile to the posts of HPAS. On the basis of said approval, petitioners were promoted as HPAS rt officers on ad hoc basis on 09.11.2011. The promotions cannot be made merely on the basis of recommendations of the DPC, which are advisory in nature and may be accepted/rejected by the Competent Authority.
It is well settled that promotion to a post can be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which the vacancy had arisen (Reference:- Union of India and others Vs. K.K. Vadera and others 3). Mere existence of vacancy per-se will not create a right in faovur of an employee for retrospective promotion (Reference:- Union of 3 1989 Supp (2)SCC 625 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:39071 India Vs. Manpreet Singh, Poonam Etc4. It would also be appropriate to quote State of U.P. and other Vs. Giriraj Prasad Sharma5 :-
.
"8. The Single Judge rightly relied upon Union of India v.
K.K.Vadera (supra) which held that there is no law or rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of that post. This stance was further confirmed in Baij Nath Sharma (supra) wherein this Court reiterated the same view. A promotion to a vacant of post should be from the date that promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post fell vacant. The further reliance on Deepak Agrawal (supra) is also rt correct as it was held therein that there is no statutory duty cast upon the department to either prepare a year wise panel of the eligible candidates or of the selected candidatures for promotion. Moreover, in Roshan Singh (supra), this Court noted that the writ petition therein was filed after the parties had retired from services and looking at this, they cannot be granted any relief."
Bihar State Electricity Board and others vs. Dharamdeo Das6 holds that promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs:-
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post 4 (2022)2 SCC Online SC 272 5 Civil Appeal Nos. 161-162 of 2025 decided on 06.01.2025 6 2024 SCC OnLine Sc 1768 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 12 - 2025:HHC:39071 itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In .
this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai7 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others8 and Ajit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others9, a three Judge Bench observed of thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was rt held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others7 in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:
"4...........There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondentwrit petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified."
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others9 , laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., 7 (2022)12 SCC 579 8 (1991) 2 SCC 295 9 (1999)7SCC 209 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:39071 observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27 "Articles 14 asnd 16(1) is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of .
the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws'. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that:
'there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State'. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 of and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office rt under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right.
"Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1)
27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. 12 , and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana13 , and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered"
for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:39071 be "considered" for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. ], right from 1950."
.
19. A similar view has also been expressed earlier hereto in K.V. Subba Rao and Others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others 10, Union of India and Others vs. K.K. Vadera and Others11 , Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others 12, State of Uttaranchal and Others vs. of Dinesh Kumar Sharma13, Nirmal Chandra Sinha (supra) and recently in Manpreet Singh Poonam (supra).
20. In State of Bihar and Others vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath and Others14, it was held that rt retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi and Others vs. Union of India and Others15, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others16 , in the following words :
"37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a 10 (1988)2SCC 201 11 (1989)supp. 2 SCC 625 12 (2004) 10 SCC 734 13 (2007)1 SCC 683 14 1991 Supp. (1)SCC 334 15 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272 16 (2006)10 SCC 346 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:39071 date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi and Others v. Union of India and Other held that when promotion is outside the .
quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotees, it would not be proper to do injustice of to the direct recruits.......
38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis rt from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validly in the meantime."
(emphasis added)"
Petitioners' claim for promotion w.e.f. the year 2010 is therefore not tenable. The recommendations of the DPC dated 04.09.2011 could not be accepted by the Competent Authority. Petitioners were promoted on ad hoc basis on 09.11.2011. Review DPC was convened on 19.11.2019 and its recommendations were accepted on 02.12.2019 which led to petitioners' promotions in HPAS on actual basis w.e.f. 02.12.2019 and notional basis from 09.11.2019.
4(ii)(b) Here it would be in place to extract para 16.44
from Handbook on Personnel Matters (Vol.-I), to the effect
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:39071
that promotions of officers included in panel would be regular from the date of commencement of validity of the panel or from the date of actual promotion, whichever is later.:-
.
"16.44 Regularisation of ad hoc appointments-procedure regarding.
In accordance with the procedure laid down in para 8 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No.1/16/68 -ESTT(D), dated 30th August, 1969, as circulated with Appointment Department letter of No. Apptt. 1-350/57 (Vol. III), dated 20-10-1969 (Annexure-16.34) as also incorporated in Appendix 29 of Chaudhary's Compilation of CRS (Vol-Il), (9th Edition), rt promotion of officers included in a panel would be regular from the date of commencement of validity of the panel or from the date of their actual promotion, whichever is later. Further, the date of commencement of validity of the panel is the date or the last date of meeting of the DPC and/or the date on which the Public Service Commission communicate their approval to the panel. Obviously, therefore, the regular appointments can take effect from a date not earlier than the commencement of validity of the panel or the date of actual promotion, whichever is later.
In quite a large number of cases various Departments have made adhoc appointments on one reason or the other. It may be that in certain cases such adhoc appointments had been made by convening meetings of the DPCs, but the fact remains that all such appointments were termed as 'adhoc' pending completion of certain formalities. Such adhoc appointments cannot automatically be regularised from retrospective effect, as the panels drawn or the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:39071 recommendations of the DPCs for adhoc appointment cannot be considered as regular panels or regular deliberations of the DPCs. In all cases, therefore, fresh DPCs are to be held and panels drawn for making .
regular appointments.
It has, however, come to the notice of the Government that in certain cases some of the Departments have regularised adhoc appointments from retrospective effect in violation of the aforesaid instructions. In such cases the Departments have also of not, consulted the Personnel Department as to their proposed action or sought concurrence of this Department for any relaxation of the standing instructions, as was required under the provisions of the rt Rules of Business of the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. All Departments are advised to strictly follow the prescribed procedures only."
The petitioners alongwith others had been promoted in HPAS ad hoc basis w.e.f. 09.11.2011, with rider that such ad hoc promotion will not confer any right for regularization. They were justly conferred notional promotion w.e.f. 09.11.2011 and on actual basis w.e.f. 02.12.2019.
Similar treatment had been given by the respondents not just to the petitioners, but also to all others, who were considered alongwith the petitioners and recommended by the DPC for promotion against the vacancies for the year 2010 and who had been promoted on ad hoc basis on 09.11.2011.
4(ii)(c) The respondents have categorically pleaded that ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 18 - 2025:HHC:39071 on account of petitioners' promotions/induction into HPAS on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 09.11.2011, all monetary benefits due against the said ad hoc promotion, were released and paid .
to them, which otherwise were to be given only to regularly promoted officers. Relevant portion from the reply is as under:-
"2. That although the petitioners were promoted on of regular basis w.e.f. 02.12.2019, yet they remained posted on the cadre/ex-cadre posts of H.P. Administrative Service w.e.f. 09.11.2011 and all the rt officers including petitioners were also given pay & allowances as per pay structure of H.P. Administrative Service. The petitioners were also given benefits of four tier pay scales on completion of 4 & 9 years of service by counting their service with effect from 09.11.2011 i.e. when they were promoted to HPAS on ad hoc basis and later on this promotion was treated as notional upto 01.12.2019. Thus there is neither any wrong pay fixation done on the part of respondents nor any financial loss has occurred to the petitioners as they received all the monetary benefits, which otherwise were to be given to regular promotee officers. Apart from this, since the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred as DPC for the promotion in question had been convened in the year 2011 and accordingly, the petitioners were promoted on ad hoc basis in the same year alongwith other eligible officers and all the benefits which were admissible to regular HPAS officer were granted to them. As far as, promotion from the date(s) of availability of vacancies are ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:39071 concerned, the same had not been recommended by the DPC. Also, it will be contrary to the pertaining rules/instructions of the Government and will unsettle the settled position of law. "
.
The above assertions have not been refuted by the petitioners.
No other point was urged.
5. In view of above, merely on the ground of the DPC of having considered and recommended promotion of the petitioners against the vacancies of the year 2010 in its rt meeting dated 04.04.2011, petitioners cannot be ordered to be promoted from the year 2010. Promotions will have prospective effect even in cases where vacancies relate to previous years. DPC's recommendations of 04.04.2011 could not be processed by the respondents for several reasons including Court cases and orders passed therein. In the interregnum, petitioners alongwith others were promoted to HPAS on 09.11.2011 merely on ad hoc basis. After finalization of Court cases, the review DPC was convened on 14.11.2019. The recommendations of review DPC were accepted and order was issued on 02.12.2019 notionally promoting the petitioners as well as others into HPAS w.e.f.
09.11.2011 i.e. from the date of their ad hoc promotion and ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS
- 20 - 2025:HHC:39071 on actual basis from the date of issuance of the order. The orders are in conformity with the settled legal position and the prescribed procedure. As per respondents, petitioners and .
other similarly situated incumbents have been treated alike.
Petitioners have been paid all monitory benefits in lieu of their ad hoc promotions at par with regular promotees.
For the foregoing discussion in para-4, relief of prayed by the petitioners cannot be granted to them. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
rt Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 19, 2025 R.Atal ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:58 :::CIS