TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Himachal Pradesh HC seeks affidavit on Chief Secretary's extension

The Advocate General prays for time to file the specific affidavit to this effect whether the recommendation made admittedly by the chief minister in the present case would fall within the parameters of the said rules
Himachal High Court. Tribune photo

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The HP High Court has directed the state government to file additional affidavit placing on record the consequential order passed after the approval was granted by the Central Government on March 28, 2025, regarding the extension granted to Prabodh Saxena as Chief Secretary of the state government.

Advertisement

During the course of arguments, while referring to Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits), Rules, 1958, the counsel for Saxena has referred to the third proviso of the said rule, whereby the recommendations have to be made by the concerned state government with full justification and in public interest.

Advertisement

In view of this contention, the Advocate General prays for time to file the specific affidavit to this effect whether the recommendation made admittedly by the chief minister in the present case would fall within the parameters of the said rules.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma passed this order on a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Atul Sharma seeking quashing of extension given to Prabodh Saxena as Chief Secretary on the ground that it was given in clear violation of the Central Services Rules and guidelines of Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). 

It was further contended that the revised guidelines regarding grant of vigilance clearance provide that Vigilance Clearance is to be denied if the charge sheet has been filed in the court by the investigating agency in a criminal case and the case is pending, and the sanction for prosecution has been granted by the Competent Authority in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or any other criminal matter and the case is pending in the Trial Court.

Advertisement

During the course of hearing in compliance to the previous order passed by the court, the Additional Solicitor General of India has also stated that the record pertaining to the extension has been dispatched from Delhi and would likely to reach with in one day.

On this, the court observed that “keeping in view the fact that the Dussehra break is going to start, let the record be produced before the Registrar General who shall retain the photocopy of the same in sealed-cover. The original record in sealed cover be handed over to the official concerned and listed the matter for further hearing on October 13.”

Advertisement
Tags :
#AllIndiaServicesRules#CentralGovernmentApproval#HPHighCourt#PrabodhSaxena#StateGovernmentAffidavit#VigilanceClearanceChiefSecretaryExtensionDoPTGuidelinesPreventionOfCorruptionActPublicInterestLitigation
Show comments
Advertisement