Key Points

Justice Sandeep Sharma, while delivering the judgment in connected petitions (CWP No. 6145 and 6140 of 2024), said the petitioners had fulfilled all eligibility criteria under the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2002, and were wrongfully denied promotion even though their juniors had been elevated to the same post.

"The petitioners shall be promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests (HPFS) from the year 2003 and will be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay fixation, arrears, pension revision, and other retiral benefits," the High Court ruled in the judgment dated July 7, 2025.

The Court added, "Since petitioners are in their seventies, this Court hopes and trusts that the needful in terms of this order shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months."

Pawan Sharma, who was appointed as Forest Guard in 1978, and Prem Chand, faced decades-long delays in service recognition and promotions. Although Sharma was eventually appointed as Deputy Ranger with retrospective effect from 1979 after multiple legal battles including a case that reached the Supreme Court he superannuated in December 2011 without being promoted to the ACF post.

Despite being promoted to Range Forest Officer (RFO) in 2012 with retrospective effect from 1996, both petitioners were denied further promotion on grounds that they had not passed the departmental examination or held a graduate degree as per the 2005 amendments.

The Court, however, held that their cases must be evaluated based on the 2002 promotion rules, which were in force when they completed seven years as RFOs in 2003. The Court also noted that vacancies existed in 2003 and that juniors were promoted without fulfilling qualifications, such as a graduate degree or departmental exams.

The bench criticized the state's conduct, observing that the petitioners had suffered because of "unwarranted and repeated litigation" initiated by the government, including review petitions and special leave petitions (SLPs), which delayed the implementation of tribunal orders.

"Their rightful claim cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches. Delay cannot be used to perpetuate injustice," the Court observed, citing Supreme Court precedents in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and B.S. Sheshagiri v. State of Karnataka.

The judgment further highlighted that, as per the Departmental Examination Rules of 1997, officers above 55 years were exempted from exams and cited multiple cases where other officers were promoted without passing such exams.

Both officers had filed repeated representations between 2012 and 2022. The Court acknowledged their relentless pursuit of justice and concluded that the petitioners' fundamental rights had been denied due to arbitrary state action.

The Court disposed of the petitions with strong words and a clear timeline for implementation: "The respondents shall carry out the promotions and release of benefits within two months."

This ruling is likely to have wider implications for similarly placed officers and could trigger a wave of claims for retrospective promotions and service benefits in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department.

- ANI