IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3841 of 2019 Decided on: 15.05.2026 ____________________________________________________ Kamal Chand ……….. petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral) The present petition was filed on 23.09.2019. In the said petition, the following reliefs have been claimed, which read as under:- 1. That the petitioners in the facts and circumstances prays that the respondents may be directed to pay to the petitioner all consequential benefits w.e.f. 2003 after promoting the petitioner as a ASI as per the policy/standing order in 10% exemptee quota w.e.f. 2003 as per judgment of this Hon’ble Court, after quashing P/1 and P/9. 2. From the perusal of Para 7 of the petition, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner is based on the fact that one HC Jagpal Singh, his junior, had been promoted to the post of ASI in the year 2002. Further, from a perusal of the next paragraph, it is evident that the representation in this respect had been made for the first time on 9.3.2011. In para 10 of the writ petition, it has been pointed out that CWP No. 10998 of 2011 was filed with respect to the aforesaid issue, which was transferred in the year 2015 to the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 3490 of 2015. The said T.A., 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 which was decided on 2.4.2019, vide the said order, the petitioner had been granted liberty to make a representation qua his grievances and, as per the order, the same was to be decided by the Director General of Police prior to 15th June, 2019. 3. The representation so made is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-8, the order rejecting the representation has been placed on record as Annexure P-9 dated 19.7.2019. From the impugned order (Annexure P-9) dated 19.7.2019, it is evident that promotions to the rank of ASI were made in the year 2006–2007. While making promotions to the rank of ASI, head constables who were promoted up to 27.7.1992 were considered. Since the petitioner was promoted as a head constable on 3.1.1993, hence his name was not considered for promotion as ASI in the promotions made in the year 2006–2007 against the 10% exemtpee quota. 4. Thereafter, promotions were made in the year 2008 under the 10% exemptee quota. However, the name of the petitioner could not be considered as he was facing a departmental inquiry. In pursuance to the inquiry, punishment was imposed on the petitioner on 23.3.2009. Hence, on account of the punishment imposed, the name of the petitioner could not be considered in the DPC held on 31.11.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on 31.3.2011 and the next DPC was convened on 26.5.2011 after his retirement. 5. The petition filed in September, 2019 pertains to a “stale” or “dead claim” which pertains to the year 2002 qua which representation for the first time was made on 9.3.2011. Merely because the erstwhile Tribunal granted liberty vide order dated 2.4.2019 passed 3 in T.A. No. 3490 of 2015 (page 23 of the paper book) to the petitioner to file a representation qua his grievances and in pursuance thereto a representation was filed (Annexure P-8), which was rejected vide the impugned order dated 19.7.2019 (Annexure P-9), the same would not furnish a fresh cause of action for reviving the dead issue or a time- barred dispute. In this respect, a reference has been made to (2010) 2 SCC 59 titled UOI vs. M.K. Sarkar. Relevant para thereof reads as under:- "15. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction b by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.” 6. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance, it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. 7. Other than the aforesaid, a person aggrieved by a wrong promotion of a junior should approach within six months or at the most within a year of such promotion. In this respect, reference can be made to (1975) 1 SCC 152 titled as P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Relevant para thereof reads as under:- 4 "26. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters." In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the present petition is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 15th May, 22026 tarun