HP High Court quashes re-employment, demands strict procedural adherence

Shimla, Apr 1,

In a decisive ruling that highlights  the importance of procedural integrity in public employment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the re-employment of a Director of Animal Husbandry, citing a blatant disregard for established administrative guidelines. Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja, in their judgment dated April 1st, 2025, involving petitioners Vishal Sharma and Sanjeev Dhiman, ruled against the notification dated January 2nd, 2025, which granted re-employment to the fourth respondent. The core of the court’s decision hinged on the state’s failure to comply with Chapter 22 of the Hand Book on Personal Matters, Government of Himachal Pradesh, which governs extensions and re-employment.

The court emphasized that “henceforth no employee shall be given extension or be re-employed beyond the age of superannuation/retirement save and except, in accordance with the Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of Fundamental rules 56(d). Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the Rules framed be strictly followed,” reiterating their prior directive from CWPIL No. 201 of 2017. The judgment highlighted the necessity for re-employment to occur only in “really exceptional circumstances,” a standard the state demonstrably failed to meet. The court criticized the state’s reliance on a ministerial recommendation, noting, “The sole ground for extension/re-employment was the recommendation of the Minister, upon which, the Chief Minister had already approved six months’ re-employment. Prior to that the file was not processed at all by the Department.” Furthermore, the absence of crucial documentation, including the required “certificate of integrity” and compliance with the prescribed proforma under Clause 22.6, was deemed a critical procedural lapse.

The court also expressed concern over the potential impact on the career progression of other eligible candidates, stating, “it would be appreciated that in each case of extension or re-employment, it is not only the next man who misses promotion, but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchical strata.” Consequently, the High Court invalidated the re-employment and directed the state to convene a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the petitioners’ promotions, ensuring fair and lawful consideration of Vishal Sharma’s case, despite his superannuation during the proceedings.

This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding administrative integrity, transparency, and fairness in public sector appointments, thereby safeguarding the rights of government employees and the integrity of administrative processes in Himachal Pradesh.

About the Author

Himachalscape bureau

Administrator

The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.

View All Posts

Himachalscape bureau

The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.