The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a long-pending service dispute filed by a retired government employee who challenged the promotion of her juniors to the post of Senior Assistant. The court held that since the petitioner had earlier declined promotion, she could not claim consideration again within the barred period laid down by government instructions.
The ruling came from a single bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which found no legal fault in the state’s decision-making process.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Curative Pleas in Land Acquisition Case, Says No Grounds Within Limited Review Scope
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Indu Sharma, had joined government service in 1985 and was promoted through various clerical posts over the years. In June 2004, she was offered promotion to the post of Senior Assistant but chose not to join due to personal reasons.
Later that year and in early 2005, two other employees-Kuldeep Singh and Amit Kumar Sharma-were given placement and promotion respectively to the same post. Aggrieved, Sharma approached the then Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in 2005, alleging that despite being senior and eligible, her case was ignored.
After the tribunal was abolished, the matter was transferred to the High Court as a writ petition.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Goregaon Pearl Society's Curative Pleas, Ends Long-Running Housing Dispute
The petitioner contended that:
- Her juniors were promoted ahead of her despite her seniority.
- No proper review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened.
- Her representation against the promotions was not fairly considered.
She sought quashing of the promotion orders and requested retrospective promotion with consequential benefits.
The state government opposed the petition, pointing out that:
- Kuldeep Singh was not promoted but only given placement, which did not amount to a regular promotion.
- Amit Kumar Sharma was promoted on the basis of a DPC recommendation made in January 2005.
- Government instructions dated August 27, 2004 clearly barred reconsideration of an employee for one year if they had earlier refused promotion.
Read also:- Supreme Court Mandates Timelines for Oral Arguments, Issues SOP to Streamline Hearings and Cut Delays
The state also highlighted that the petitioner’s representation had already been rejected in April 2005, a decision that was never challenged.
Court’s Observations
After examining the original records, the bench presided over by Ranjan Sharma made key factual clarifications.
“The record clearly shows that respondent No.3 was never promoted but only granted placement,” the court observed, noting that the petitioner’s foundational claim on this point was incorrect.
On the promotion of respondent No.4, the bench noted that the relevant government instructions were in force at the time. “Once the petitioner had foregone her promotion in June 2004, she became ineligible for reconsideration for one year,” the court said.
The judge also pointed out that the petitioner never challenged either the government instructions or the rejection of her representation, allowing those decisions to attain finality.
Read also:- Orissa HC Sets Aside JMFC Cognizance Order in ₹70 Lakh Misappropriation Case, Seeks Fresh Reasoned
Decision of the Court
In its final order dated November 21, 2025, the High Court dismissed the petition in entirety. The court upheld:
- The placement and promotion granted to the private respondents
- The applicability of the one-year bar after refusal of promotion
- The rejection of the petitioner’s claim due to her own ineligibility during the relevant period
The court concluded that the denial of promotion to the petitioner was lawful and required no interference. Costs were left to be borne by the parties themselves.
Case Title: Indu Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Case No.: CWPOA No. 646 of 2019
Case Type: Service Matter (Promotion Dispute)
Decision Date: 21 November 2025
