2025 (5) TMI 45 - HC - Indian Laws

Director's re-employment after retirement quashed for violating Chapter 22 Personnel Handbook procedural requirements

Vishal Sharma & Sanjeev Dhiman Versus State of H.P. and Others

Vishal Sharma & Sanjeev Dhiman Versus State of H.P. and Others - 2025:HHC:8383 - DB The core legal questions considered by the Court in these writ petitions include:1. Whether the re-employment of the respondent No. 4 to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry, after superannuation, was lawful and in accordance with the applicable legal framework and procedural requirements.2. Whether the provisions of Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personal Matters, Government of Himachal Pradesh, which govern extension and re-employment of government servants, were complied with in granting re-employment.3. Whether the decision to grant re-employment was taken in the larger public interest and based on exceptional circumstances as mandated by the rules.4. Whether the petitioners, who were eligible for promotion to the post of Director, were unlawfully deprived of their opportunity due to the re-employment of respondent No. 4.5. To what extent the Court can examine the suitability and eligibility of the re-employed officer and the justifiability of the reasons for re-employment.6. Whether the executive instructions and administrative orders issued by the State Government are binding and must be strictly followed by the authorities.Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Legality of Re-employment of Respondent No. 4The relevant legal framework includes Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personal Matters, Government of Himachal Pradesh, which distinguishes between extension and re-employment, and lays down strict criteria and procedural safeguards for granting re-employment after superannuation. The Fundamental Rules (FR) 56(d) also prescribe that no government servant shall be granted extension beyond the age of retirement except in very limited circumstances.The Court noted that re-employment is permissible only in really exceptional circumstances and must be justified by public interest along with either the unavailability of suitable successors or the outstanding merit of the retiring officer. Mere recommendation by a Minister or the incumbent's fitness to discharge duties does not suffice.The Court examined the facts and found that the re-employment was granted solely based on the Minister's recommendation and the approval of the Chief Minister for a six-month period. There was no evidence that the required criteria, such as the unavailability of suitable successors or exceptional merit, were satisfied or recorded in the file.The Court emphasized that the decision to re-employ must be objective, data-based, and reflect bona fide public interest rather than private or political considerations.Issue 2: Compliance with Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personal MattersThe Court analyzed the procedural requirements laid down in Chapter 22, particularly Clause 22.6, which prescribes a detailed procedure for processing extension/re-employment cases. This includes conducting a systematic review well in advance, scrutinizing the character roll and personal file for integrity, furnishing a certificate of integrity, considering eligible officers for promotion, and filling out a prescribed proforma with detailed justifications.The Court found that the procedure was not followed in letter or spirit. The departmental file lacked the certificate of integrity, the prescribed proforma, and any record of consideration of other eligible candidates or reasons for non-selection of successors. The file was processed only after the Minister's recommendation and Chief Minister's approval, indicating a lack of prior systematic review and adherence to procedure.The Court reiterated its earlier directions from a previous judgment that Chapter 22 and FR 56(d) must be strictly followed, and any deviation would amount to contempt of Court.Issue 3: Public Interest and Exceptional CircumstancesThe Court stressed that extension or re-employment must be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the larger public interest. It noted that the Government's own instructions recognize that re-employment of one person delays promotions for multiple others, thus affecting morale and fairness.In the instant case, the only ground for re-employment was the Minister's recommendation citing the officer's hard work and efficiency. However, no independent or objective assessment was recorded to demonstrate that other officers were not ripe for promotion or that the officer was of outstanding merit.The Court observed that the decision appeared to be motivated by individual or political considerations rather than genuine public interest, thus failing the acid test of fairness and reasonableness.Issue 4: Deprivation of Petitioners' Promotion OpportunityThe petitioners were within the zone of consideration for promotion to the Director post and had submitted representations highlighting their service records and eligibility. The Court noted that re-employment of respondent No. 4 effectively deprived the petitioners of their legitimate opportunity for promotion.Since the re-employment was held illegal and contrary to the rules, the Court directed the respondents to convene a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting and consider the petitioners' cases along with other eligible candidates.Issue 5: Justiciability of Suitability and Eligibility of Re-employed OfficerThe Court clarified that it cannot ordinarily go into the subjective suitability or eligibility of the re-employed officer, as the power to grant re-employment is traceable to the Constitution and is generally a policy decision of the Government.However, the Court retains jurisdiction to examine whether the procedure and criteria laid down by law and executive instructions have been complied with, and whether the decision is arbitrary or mala fide.In this case, since the procedure was not followed and the decision was arbitrary, the Court intervened.Issue 6: Binding Nature of Executive Instructions and Administrative OrdersThe Court relied on authoritative precedents holding that executive instructions issued by the Government are binding on the administrative authorities and must be scrupulously followed to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fair play.The Court cited judgments emphasizing that acts must be done in the prescribed manner and failure to follow mandated procedures invalidates the action.The Court held that the Government cannot act contrary to its own instructions in the absence of statutory provisions allowing such deviation.Significant Holdings'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.''The decision of the Government in reemploying a Government servant, thus, must stand the acid test of duel criteria afore referred.''The Government is obliged to balance the need for re-employment in public interest on the one hand and its obligation to consider the cases of other eligible candidates or their non-availability on the other.''Merely because the recommendation has come from an elected representative, would not justify the extension/re-employment, in absence of satisfaction recorded.''The administrative orders of the present kind must serve a greater public interest. It must be passed on public grounds and the said expression is of wide magnitude and cannot have such a limited meaning that because merely a person being a Director, he must continue in the Department.''When the State lays down executive instructions for taking any action, it is imperative on its part to scrupulously follow the same, to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fair-play.''Acts must be done in a prescribed manner and in no other way, the conditions of rules and prescribed procedure must be satisfied and there must be application of mind.''Extension in service/re-employment is only to be made in exceptional circumstances.'The Court ultimately quashed and set aside the re-employment granted to respondent No. 4, holding it illegal for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Chapter 22 and the binding directions of the Court. The Court directed the respondents to convene a fresh DPC meeting to consider the petitioners' promotion cases along with other eligible candidates, thus restoring the principle of fairness and adherence to rule of law in public service appointments.