The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the six-month extension given to PWD Engineer-in-Chief Narinder Pal Singh, terming it illegal and arbitrary, while ordering the government to complete the stalled promotion process by November 2026.
High Court Overturns Service Extension
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the six-month service extension granted to Public Works Department (PWD) Engineer-in-Chief Narinder Pal Singh, terming the government’s decision illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio. The court directed the state government to complete the stalled selection process for the post by November 11, 2026, and ordered the incumbent to relinquish charge immediately.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma passed the order while allowing a petition filed by senior Chief Engineer Narinder Paul Singh Chauhan, who had challenged the extension granted to the incumbent shortly before his scheduled retirement on April 30, 2026. The court set aside the state government’s notification dated April 28, 2026, extending Singh’s service by six months, observing that the decision was not supported by adequate justification under the applicable service rules.
Legal Mandate and Promotion Process
Directing the government to revive and conclude the proceedings of the Screening/Selection Committee initiated in April, the Bench said Chauhan should be promoted retrospectively from May 1, 2026, if found suitable and recommended by the committee. He would also be entitled to consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation and monetary arrears.
Emphasising the need for a clear justification before granting extensions beyond superannuation, the court observed that “public interest is not a magic word” that, by itself, establishes the validity of a government decision. The Bench noted that the state had failed to place on record objective evidence demonstrating the public interest necessitating the extension or establishing that no suitable successor was available to take over the post.
Background of the Selection Dispute
The Department of Personnel had initiated the process to fill the Engineer-in-Chief’s post ahead of Singh’s retirement. The Screening Committee was constituted, eligible Chief Engineers were identified, and a memorandum for considering their promotion was prepared. The committee meeting was scheduled for April 9 but could not be held because the Secretary (Personnel) was away on tour. The file was subsequently placed before the Chief Secretary for fixing another date. On April 22, the Chief Secretary recorded the note, “Please speak”. Meanwhile, a parallel process was initiated following communication from the Chief Minister’s office conveying approval for a six-month extension to the incumbent. The extension was approved on April 28, after which the promotion proceedings were closed on the ground that no vacancy remained available.
Court Observations on Procedural Irregularities
Examining the sequence of events, the Bench observed that the promotion process had been deferred while the government pursued the extension of the incumbent’s service. “Without any plausible reason, public interest, or any justifiable reason, the process of promotion was scuttled and extension of service was granted to Narinder Pal Singh,” the judgment stated.
The court further noted that the extension file did not record the reasons required to establish exceptional circumstances under the applicable rules. Under the relevant provisions governing extensions beyond superannuation, such decisions must be justified in public interest and satisfy at least one of two conditions: either other officers are not sufficiently prepared to take over the responsibilities, or the retiring officer possesses outstanding merit warranting continuation in service. The Bench found that neither condition had been established in the present case. It also noted that neither the state government nor the incumbent had alleged that the next eligible officer was incompetent or incapable of discharging the responsibilities of Engineer-in-Chief.
Singh had argued that several priority projects were underway and required continuity in supervision, making his continued service necessary in the public interest. However, the court observed that the government had not substantiated this justification in its reply. The Bench also referred to a similar case involving the Animal Husbandry Department, Vishal Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh, while examining the limits on granting extensions to retiring government officials.
While the court stopped short of directly appointing Chauhan to the post, it made clear that his promotion must be considered through the prescribed selection process and, if he is found suitable, made effective retrospectively from May 1, 2026. The court further ruled that the principle of “no work, no pay” would not apply in these circumstances, as the petitioner had been prevented from occupying the post because of the extension under challenge. The state government has been directed to conclude the selection proceedings by November 11, 2026, and extend all consequential benefits to Chauhan from the due date if he is selected for promotion.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
