State Employees' Absorption Policy Must Be Applied Uniformly; Denial After Eligibility Is Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed held that once the petitioner acquires the requisite qualification and the policy continued to operate, absorbtion cannot be denied.Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Once it is not in dispute that communication dated 06.03.2017 has not been withdrawn till date and pursuant to afore communication, number of similarly situate persons have been...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed held that once the petitioner acquires the requisite qualification and the policy continued to operate, absorbtion cannot be denied.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Once it is not in dispute that communication dated 06.03.2017 has not been withdrawn till date and pursuant to afore communication, number of similarly situate persons have been absorbed, there appears to be no justification to deny the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner…
Background Facts:
The petitioner, Veena Devi, approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the rejection of her claim for absorption on the post of Peon in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra.
She worked as a Peon/Sweeper under the e-Governance Society since 2002 and sought absorption under the State Government's policy of 6 March 2017.
The State Government, decided to absorb e-Governance employees working in Deputy Commissioner offices, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions.
However the petitioner was not considered for absorbtion initially as she did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. After acquiring the requisite qualification in March 2020, she again applied for absorption. However, her request was rejected by the State.
Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of her rejection order.
She contended that several similarly situated e-Governance employees had already been absorbed under the 2017 policy and denial of the same benefit to her amounted to discrimination. She further contended that a recommendation was made in her favour by the Deputy Commissioner.
In response, the State contended that the petitioner was earlier found ineligible and that absorption could only be granted to those appointed strictly in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Case Name: Veena Devi v/s State of H.P. and Another
Case No.: CWP No. 1575 of 2021
Date of Decision: 17.11.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Raj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for State.