Posted in a Hard Area, Working in Shimla: Himachal High Court Closes the Record-Keeping Gap

An employee may be posted on paper at a tribal or difficult station but actually work at a more convenient location. Until now, an incomplete service record could allow the employee to continue receiving the administrative benefit of the hard-area posting. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State to close that gap.

The judgment in Vipin Kumar Guleria v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWPIL No. 31 of 2024, reported as 2026:HHC:22750, was delivered on 15 June 2026 by Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi.

The case reveals how an apparently minor failure to record a deputation can affect public services in remote areas, future transfers and the distribution of posting-related benefits.

The petitioner’s case

The PIL concerned employees posted against positions in tribal, hard, difficult and rural areas but deployed or adjusted at headquarters, soft stations, the Secretariat, Directorates or other institutions.

The petitioner sought enforcement of government decisions issued on 1 May 1999, 27 July 2000, 1 December 2005 and 2 June 2010.

His grievance was that salaries were being drawn against posts situated in remote areas even though the concerned employees were working elsewhere. This arrangement, according to the petitioner, deprived residents of difficult areas of the services for which those posts had been sanctioned.

The petitioner also sought action against Drawing and Disbursing Officers and Treasury Officers who processed salary bills without certifying that the employee had actually worked at the station shown in the bill.

The State’s explanation

During the proceedings, affidavits were filed by the Education and Health Departments.

The State explained that some employees were temporarily adjusted or deputed to other institutions because they, or their dependants, suffered from serious medical conditions. Other deployments were made because of adverse personal circumstances and with the approval of the competent authority.

The State maintained that these arrangements did not necessarily involve unauthorised withdrawal of salary. The difficulty, however, was that the initial affidavits did not provide complete details of the employees working away from their designated stations.

The Court therefore required comprehensive information identifying such employees and the duration of their deployments.

What the Court’s scrutiny revealed

By an order dated 18 August 2025, the Court recorded that 86 employees of the Education Department and 123 employees of the Health Department were posted or deputed at places different from their official stations.

A further question then arose: was the period spent at the place of deputation being reflected in the service book?

The answer was significant. The Court recorded on 26 November 2025 that the period of deputation was not being separately entered for future-transfer purposes. Instead, the employee continued to be shown as serving at the original place of posting.

The judgment gives a telling example. An employee could be transferred from Shimla to a hard or tribal area, later deputed back to Shimla, and still have the entire period counted as service at the hard station. The same employee could thereafter claim posting benefits or a favourable transfer on the strength of a difficult-area tenure that was not actually completed there.

The Chief Secretary’s instructions

Following the Court’s intervention, the Chief Secretary issued instructions on 5 January 2026.

These required the employee’s place and duration of deployment or deputation to be entered in the service book. The period spent away from the parent station was to be counted separately for purposes including future transfers and posting-related benefits.

The instructions also contemplated action against officers or officials responsible for non-compliance.

This addressed a substantial part of the PIL, but the petitioner pointed out that one safeguard was still missing.

The missing salary certificate

The petitioner relied on the government instructions dated 1 May 1999. They required the Drawing and Disbursing Officer to certify on the salary bill that the employee had actually worked at the station shown in the bill during the relevant month.

Under those instructions, a bill without the certificate was not to be passed, and the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer and Treasury Officer could face disciplinary action.

The petitioner submitted that the instructions issued on 5 January 2026 did not adequately incorporate this requirement.

The State then informed the Court that the necessary provision would be added.

The Court’s directions

The Court directed that the fact of deployment or deputation at a place different from the formal station must necessarily be recorded in the employee’s service book.

It also required the State to supplement and modify the instructions of 5 January 2026 by incorporating the salary-certification safeguard drawn from the earlier government decision.

A compliance report was directed to be filed within six weeks. The PIL was disposed of after the Court recorded that it had served its purpose.

Why the directions matter

The case is not about preventing the Government from accommodating every employee facing a medical or personal hardship. The Court did not invalidate such deputations.

Its concern was transparency.

Where an employee is formally posted in a difficult area but works elsewhere, the record must reveal both facts. Otherwise, the remote institution may remain understaffed while the employee continues to receive the administrative advantage of a posting never actually served.

The judgment creates a straightforward rule for an easily obscured practice: the service book must follow the employee’s real place of work, not merely the station appearing in the original posting order.