2025:HHC:22910 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 171 of 2019 Date of decision : 15.07.2025. Ram Kumar Sharma ...Applicant. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief: - “That the respondents may kindly be directed to give arrears of the pay which he is entitled after his promotion as Chief Lab Technician and fixed the pay of the applicant in the pay scale of Chief Lab Technician and also give due and admissible pension to the applicant.” 3. While pleading the facts of the case, petitioner has averred that he was appointed as trained Lab Technologist on 21.04.1965. He was promoted as Chief Medical Lab 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2025:HHC:22910 Technologist w.e.f. 31.01.1998 and retired from service on 28.02.2002. 4. The petitioner has tried to make out a case that he was entitled for increments on completion of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service. According to him, while promoting the petitioner to the post of Chief Medical Lab Technologist, his pay was not fixed by taking into consideration the increments allegedly applicable to him on completion of 8, 16, 24 ad 32 years of service. 5. The respondents are contesting the claim of the petitioner. It has been submitted that on being promoted to the post of Chief Lab Technician vide order dated 31.01.1998, the petitioner was ordered to be posted in Civil Hospital Dehra, District Kangra. The petitioner did not accept the said promotion and tendered his unwillingness vide letter dated 25.03.1998. The petitioner thereafter filed original application No. 959 of 2001 before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in which directions were issued to Director Health Services to treat the application of the petitioner as Representation and to decide the same. 6. During the course of hearing of instant petition, the Director Health Services filed an affidavit in pursuance to order dated 07.03.2012 passed by this Court. It was reiterated that -3- 2025:HHC:22910 the petitioner had not accepted his promotion order as Chief Laboratory Technician as he was not willing to join at the place where he was posted. 7. Thus, the petitioner not having joined the promotional post of Chief Laboratory Technician, cannot be allowed the relief as sought in the petition. Moreover, no details have been provided as to on which dates the petitioner had become entitled for increments after 8, 16, 24 ad 32 years of service. Apparently, the petitioner having joined the service in the Year 1965 could not have raised the stale and belated claims, if any, after his retirement. The instant petition has been filed in the Year 2003. 8. After considering all attending circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed in the petition. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 15th July, 2025 Judge (Vriti)