1 2025:HHC:28019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No.1215 of 2025 & LPA No.547 of 2025 Decided on: 14.08.2025 Ganga Guleria ......applicant/appellant Versus H.P.U ...non-applicant/respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant/appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.1215 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 27 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.547 of 2025 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28019 Writ Petition No.1982 of 2025 titled Ganga Guleria vs. H.P.U was decided and dismissed on 21.03.2025 on the ground of delay and laches. 3. The learned Single Judge kept in mind the fact that the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement in the year 2006 and was seeking the benefit of Senior Scale from the year 1999 and Selection Grade from the year 2004, on the ground that an office order had been issued on 19.07.2011, wherein the benefit had been granted to three employees who were stated to be similarly situated since they had been designated as Lecturers by the University as Volleyball Coach. 4. It is accordingly noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP(T) No.9950 of 2008, wherein an order had been passed on 26.02.2011, granting liberty to represent to the respondent-University. It was then noticed that the representation was not made for 13 years and was only filed on 20.08.2024 which led to the rejection on 22.02.2025. Accordingly, it was held that merely moving the representation 3 2025:HHC:28019 would not rekindle the cause of action that had occured in the year 2011. 5. The counsel has vehemently argued while placing reliance upon Union of India and others versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 that the benefits could be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. We are not in a position to agree with the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant as apparently that was a case where the Division Bench had granted further payment of arrears for a period of 16 years, modifying the order of the learned Single Judge and in such circumstances while allowing the appeal the said principles had been laid down that the High Court could restrict the arrears to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, while also placing reliance upon M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628. 6. In the present case, it is to be noticed that there is a severance as such in the employer and employee relationship way back in the year 2006 when the appellant took voluntary retirement and she was a pensioner as such. 4 2025:HHC:28019 As noticed, for the first time in 2011 she filed a writ petition praying for the said relief and was eventually relegated to make a representation, which she failed to do so for a period of 13 years. 7. In such circumstances, once the petitioner has retired, we are of the considered opinion that merely on account of the rejection order now passed on 22.02.2025 during the pendency of the writ petition as such would not give her a fresh cause of action. Even a perusal of order which has now been placed on record would go on to show that the persons similarly situated had given self-appraisal reports, which had been forwarded by the Department of Physical Education before their superannuation and in such circumstances, the benefit had been granted to them. The voluntary retirement having come into force on 27.01.2006, thus would put the petitioner on a separate pedestal and merely on account of filing the writ petition in the year 2011 would not revive the cause of action as the Apex Court in The Government of India versus P Venkatesh (2019) 8 SCC 5 2025:HHC:28019 544 has held that by getting order for deciding of representation as such does not extend the limitation and has deprecated the principles of deciding the representation mantra. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that that the claim at such belated stage would be barred and the view taken by the learned Single Judge in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Marinmoy Maity vs. Chanda Koley and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 2717, relied upon and quoted by the learned Single Judge would not warrant any interference. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ] ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice August 14 , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge