Himachal Pradesh High Court Validates Service Extension of Former Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, Dismisses PIL Alleging Impropriety
Below is a fully rewritten, richly detailed, professionally enhanced English version, with every sentence completely rephrased and expanded for maximum clarity and website-quality reporting:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the six-month service extension granted to former Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, bringing an end to a legal challenge questioning the legitimacy of the extension. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the decision has been dismissed, with the court affirming that the Central and State Governments acted within the legal framework while extending Saxena’s tenure until September 30, 2025.
PIL Contested Extension Amid Pending CBI Case
The PIL was submitted by Atul Sharma, who contested the appropriateness of granting an extension to an officer who is presently facing prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Sharma argued that allowing a senior bureaucrat with an ongoing criminal case to continue in office undermined public confidence in governance and violated the principles of transparency and accountability.
Bench Evaluated Statutory Powers and Questions of Public Interest
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma undertook a detailed examination of the matter. Although the court acknowledged that the PIL raised valid concerns about potential conflict with public interest—given the corruption charges pending against Saxena—it proceeded to assess the case on merits.
The judges requested comprehensive documentation from both the Union Government and the Himachal Pradesh Government. These records included the administrative rationale behind the extension and assessments of how the decision aligned with broader public interest. The Central Government clarified that the extension had been approved after receiving a detailed recommendation from the State Government, with full awareness of the officer’s legal status and the ongoing INX Media case proceedings.
Centre Conducted Due Diligence Before Approving Extension
Upon reviewing official files from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the court concluded that the extension was not a routine or uninformed action. The competent authorities were cognizant of the pending criminal proceedings and the sanction for prosecution. Nonetheless, they determined that the extension was permissible under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, which allows continuance of service beyond the age of superannuation when justified in public interest.
The bench further noted that the Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister had strongly endorsed Saxena’s extension, citing his substantial contributions to key state reforms, including the Green State policy, solar energy expansion, electric-mobility initiatives, and fiscal restructuring measures. The Centre also took into account precedents where Chief Secretaries of other states had received similar extensions.
No Violation of Vigilance Norms, Says Court
The petitioner argued that the extension was illegal due to the absence of vigilance clearance. However, the court rejected this contention, explaining that the 2024 DoPT vigilance guidelines do not apply to extensions granted under Rule 16. While Saxena had been denied vigilance clearance for a separate post at the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA), this did not restrict the government from considering him for an extension as Chief Secretary.
Judicial Review Limited to Legality of the Process
The bench reiterated that courts cannot substitute their own judgment for that of the executive and that judicial review is confined to assessing whether the decision-making process was arbitrary, irrational, or procedurally flawed. The judges stated:
“Once the competent authority was apprised with the background of the case… this Court is not inclined to go into the decision-making process itself by substituting the same with our own personal opinion.”
Having found that all statutory requirements had been met and that the authorities had exercised their discretion after due consideration of facts, the court declined to intervene.
Ruling Issued Despite Expiry of Extension
Although Saxena’s extended tenure had already come to an end by the time the judgment was reserved, the court decided to issue a ruling due to the matter’s implications for public administration and public interest jurisprudence. Ultimately, the bench concluded that the government’s decision to extend Saxena’s service was fully compliant with Rule 16 and did not warrant judicial interference.
