HP High Court quashes PWD Engineer-in-Chief’s extension, orders immediate exit

Court finds no evidence of public interest, says promotion process was deliberately deferred; Government told to complete selection by November 11

Shimla, Oct 27,

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday quashed the six-month service extension granted to Public Works Department (PWD) Engineer-in-Chief Narinder Pal Singh, directing him to relinquish charge immediately and ordering the State Government to complete the stalled selection process for the post by November 11.

Allowing a petition filed by Chief Engineer Narinder Paul Singh Chauhan, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma declared the extension notification dated April 28, 2026, “illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio”.

The Court directed the State to revive and conclude the proceedings of the Screening/Selection Committee initiated in April for filling the post of Engineer-in-Chief. It further ordered that if Chauhan is found suitable and recommended for promotion, he must be promoted retrospectively from May 1, 2026, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation and monetary arrears.

In a observation on the Government’s justification for retaining retiring officials, the Bench held: “Public interest is not a magic word, user of which itself discloses the public interest which was or is warranted for the impugned action of the respondent-State.”

The Court noted that the State had failed to produce any evidence demonstrating the public interest that necessitated the extension or establishing that no suitable successor was available.

Promotion process stalled after Chief Minister’s approval

The judgment reconstructs the sequence of administrative decisions leading to the controversy, relying on official files and noting sheets obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act.

The Department of Personnel had initiated the process to fill the Engineer-in-Chief’s post ahead of Narinder Pal Singh’s scheduled retirement on April 30. The Screening Committee was constituted, eligible Chief Engineers were identified, and a memorandum for consideration of their promotion was prepared.

The committee meeting was scheduled for April 9 but could not take place because the Secretary (Personnel) was away on tour. The file was subsequently placed before the Chief Secretary to fix another date. On April 22, the Chief Secretary recorded the note “Please speak”.

Meanwhile, a separate process was initiated following communication from the Chief Minister’s office conveying approval for a six-month extension. The extension was approved on April 28, and the promotion proceedings were subsequently closed on the ground that no vacancy remained available.

Examining this sequence, the Bench observed that the promotion file had been deferred while a parallel process for extending the incumbent’s service was pursued.

“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,” the judgment states.

The Court also noted that the extension file did not record the reasons necessary to establish the exceptional circumstances required under the applicable rules.

Government’s own rules required exceptional circumstances

The judgment extensively examines Chapter 22 of the Himachal Pradesh Government’s Handbook on Personnel Matters, which governs extension of service and re-employment beyond superannuation.

Under these provisions, such extensions must be justified by public interest and satisfy at least one of two conditions: either other officers are not sufficiently prepared to take over the job, or the retiring officer possesses outstanding merit.

The Court found that neither condition had been established in this case.

It noted that the Department of Personnel had itself initiated the promotion process, identifying eligible Chief Engineers for consideration. The State’s reply also did not establish that the petitioner or another eligible officer was incapable of taking over the post.

The Bench observed that the prescribed proforma for seeking an extension had not been filled in or submitted to the competent authority.

“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,” the Court held.

It further observed that the Government’s decision of April 7 had directed departments not to entertain proposals seeking extension, re-employment or re-engagement of officers, yet the extension was approved later that month.

Court rejects argument of continuity in projects

The incumbent had argued that several ongoing priority projects required continuity in supervision and that his continued service was necessary in the public interest. However, the Bench noted that the State had not substantiated this justification in its reply. The arguments concerning ongoing projects appeared in the incumbent’s own response rather than in the Government’s case supporting the extension.

Also read: Himachal HC quashes HIMUDA CEO appointment, says incumbent was ineligible

The Court also recorded that neither the State nor the incumbent had alleged that the next eligible officer was incompetent or incapable of performing the duties of Engineer-in-Chief.

The judgment states that Chauhan’s claims regarding his eligibility, competence and capability had remained unrebutted in the respondents’ replies. The Bench concluded that the case was comparable to earlier judgments concerning irregular extensions and re-employment, particularly Vishal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Sanjeev Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

It distinguished the present matter from the extension granted to the Chief Secretary in Atul Sharma v. Union of India, observing that the latter involved a different set of rules and a decision supported by a recorded justification in public interest.

Retrospective promotion and arrears ordered

While the Court did not directly appoint Chauhan as Engineer-in-Chief, it made clear that he would be entitled to promotion from May 1 if found suitable and recommended by the Screening Committee.

The Bench also ruled that the principle of “no work, no pay” would not apply in these circumstances, as the petitioner had been prevented from occupying the post because of the impugned extension.

The Court directed that, if selected, Chauhan must receive the consequential benefits attached to the post from the due date, including actual monetary emoluments and arrears. The operative directions require the State to complete the selection proceedings by November 11, 2026.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of by the Division Bench on October 27.

About the Author

himachalscape

Administrator

Visit Website View All Posts