Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Six-Month Extension Granted To Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a six-month extension of service granted to the Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, and held that its role is not to substitute its own view for that of the Government.

The Court reiterated that as Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 permits such extension and due process was followed, there was no ground to intervene.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “This Court would not be in a position to substitute the opinion of the Competent Authority… once the due process has been carried out before grant of permission.”

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation, seeking quashing of the extension order which granted a 6-month extension to the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioner contended that an extension cannot be granted to an officer who is an accused in a corruption case. He further contended that Clauses 3(f) and 3(g) of the Department of Personnel and Training Guidelines prohibit granting clearance when a chargesheet has been filed.

In response, the Union of India contended that the decision of extension is an administrative decision and is not justifiable to be challenged in a Court of law.

It further submitted that Courts do not normally interfere in the policy decisions of the Government unless the policy decision is manifestly arbitrary, illegal or violates the rules and regulations.

The Court remarked that the PIL is maintainable, as although service matters are outside PIL jurisdiction, the case concerned granting an extension of service to an officer facing corruption charges, so the petitioner and the general public have a right to know whether there has been misuse of power.

The Court then observed that the competent authority was very well aware of the CBI chargesheet, the prosecution sanction, the pendency and stage of the criminal trial. The extension was mainly recommended due to the ongoing Green-State, renewable energy, and fiscal reforms initiatives which were led by the officer.

Thus, the Court upheld the extension of the Chief Secretary and dismissed the Public Interest Litigation.

Case Name: Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others

Case No.: CWPIL No.26 of 2025

Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Shubham Jain (through Video Conferencing) and Ms. Sheetal Vyas Central Government Standing Counsel (in person) for respondent No. 1-UOI.,

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 2-State.

Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Click Here To Read/Download Order