Shimla, April 1, 2025 – The Himachal Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on the state government for granting an "unwarranted" six-month extension to the Director of Animal Husbandry, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, after his superannuation, despite clear rules prohibiting such extensions except in rare cases.
A division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja, while hearing two petitions (CWP Nos. 231 & 475 of 2025) filed by senior Joint Directors Dr. Vishal Sharma and Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman, ruled that the extension was granted in blatant violation of government regulations and the court’s own previous orders.
Govt Flouted Rules, Ignored Promotions
The petitioners, both senior officials in the department, challenged the re-employment of Dr. Sharma, arguing that it deprived them of their rightful promotions.
Dr. Vishal Sharma, who was next in line for the Director’s post, had contended that he would have taken over the position upon Dr. Sharma’s retirement on December 31, 2024. Similarly, Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman claimed that his own promotion was obstructed due to the illegal extension.
The court noted that the government’s decision was not backed by the necessary approvals under Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-II, which mandates a structured process for extensions, including integrity checks and departmental reviews.
The Chief Secretary had even raised a query regarding objections to the extension, but the matter was rushed through, with the Chief Minister ultimately approving the re-employment without following due process.
Judgment Echoes 2017 Court Orders
The court reminded the state government of its 2017 ruling in CWPIL No. 201 of 2017 (Court on its Own Motion vs. State of HP), which categorically prohibited any extension beyond retirement age unless it adhered to strict guidelines.
Despite this, the government ignored the norms and granted the extension arbitrarily.
The bench observed:
"The procedure laid down for extension in service has not been followed and has been violated with impunity, that too, despite our earlier judgment."
Additionally, the state failed to furnish the integrity certificate and follow the prescribed format for justifying the extension, raising further questions about transparency.
Petitioners Highlight Discrimination
Apart from procedural lapses, the court also took note of Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman’s plea that the extension denied him a fair chance at promotion despite his 33 years of service and the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community.
He argued that his right to career progression was being unfairly blocked in violation of the state’s duty to uphold the interests of officers from marginalized backgrounds.
Government Put on Notice
With the High Court striking down the extension, the government now faces serious questions about its handling of bureaucratic appointments.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s stand against arbitrary extensions and favoritism in service matters. The court has made it clear—no more backdoor extensions at the cost of meritorious officers waiting for their due promotions.
