Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Retrospective Promotion of Retired Forest Officers; Criticizes State for Prolonged Injustice

July 07, 2025

Landmark Judgment for Forest Department Veterans

In a major development impacting service jurisprudence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to promote two retired Range Forest Officers—Pawan Sharma and Prem Chand—to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) with retrospective effect from 2003. The court also slammed the state authorities for arbitrarily denying rightful benefits and delaying justice through prolonged litigation.

The judgment was passed by Justice Sandeep Sharma on July 7, 2025, in two connected writ petitions: CWP No. 6145 and CWP No. 6140 of 2024.

Petitioners Met Promotion Criteria Under 2002 Rules

Both petitioners fulfilled all the eligibility conditions as per the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2002, which required seven years of service as a Range Forest Officer for promotion to ACF.

Pawan Sharma joined as a Forest Guard in 1978 and was retrospectively appointed as a Deputy Ranger from 1979.
He later became a Range Forest Officer in 1996, with the designation officially conferred in 2012.
Prem Chand had a similar service record and was similarly denied promotion.

Despite meeting all the required service conditions by 2003, both officers were denied promotion, while juniors without mandatory qualifications were elevated.

Court Declares Delay Tactics Unjustified

The High Court took serious note of the state government’s conduct, observing that it had used repeated litigation, including review petitions and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), to avoid complying with tribunal and court orders.

Justice Sandeep Sharma observed:

“Delay cannot be used to perpetuate injustice.”

The bench cited binding precedents including:

Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao
B.S. Sheshagiri v. State of Karnataka

These cases reaffirm that retrospective promotions cannot be denied if candidates had satisfied the prevailing criteria and if vacancies existed at the relevant time.

Court Overrules 2005 Amendments for This Case

The 2005 amendment to the recruitment rules added a graduate degree and departmental exams as eligibility criteria for ACF promotions. The state had used these revised requirements to deny the petitioners promotion.

However, the Court held that since the petitioners had become eligible in 2003, the 2002 rules—which were still applicable then—must govern their promotion. Furthermore, under the Departmental Examination Rules, 1997, officers above 55 years were exempted from departmental exams, strengthening the petitioners’ claim.

State’s Arbitrary Action Violated Fundamental Rights

The Court acknowledged that Sharma and Prem Chand had made numerous representations between 2012 and 2022, but the state consistently ignored their pleas. The delay and denial were found to be arbitrary, resulting in a violation of their fundamental service rights.

The Court held:

“The petitioners’ rightful claim cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches.”

Clear Direction for Implementation

The Court issued a strict timeline of two months for implementation of its directions. The petitioners are now entitled to:

Retrospective promotion as ACFs from 2003
Pay fixation with arrears
Revised pension
All retiral benefits

Wider Implications for Forest Officers in Himachal

This ruling is likely to set a precedent for similarly placed retired officers in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department. Many officers who were denied rightful promotions due to rule changes, bureaucratic delays, or selective application of criteria, could now consider legal recourse for retrospective promotions and monetary benefits.

Conclusion: A Fight for Justice, Finally Won

This case underscores the importance of judicial intervention in correcting administrative injustices, especially when state actions deny individuals their legitimate service entitlements. The High Court’s firm stance sends a message that age, retirement, or administrative delay cannot be used to deny justice.

The petitioners, both in their seventies, have finally received recognition for decades of unacknowledged service—a reminder that justice delayed need not always be justice denied.