IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10147 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhajju Ram …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- i. That the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent No. 3-Divisional Manager, HRTC, Divisional Office, Mandi (H.P) may kindly be quashed and set aside being arbitrary, illegal, constitutionality void, nonest and against the principle of natural justice and violative of the Scheme, by issuing writ of Certiorari and justice be done. ii. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to extend the benefits of 24 and 32 years’ service under old Assured Career Progression Scheme taking into 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 consideration their own orders dated 13.02.2017 whereby benefit of 32 years’ service under old ACP Scheme was extended to one Sh. Padam Nabh, who was junior to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits and justice be done. iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to revise the pension of the petitioner, gratuity as well as leave encashment, accordingly and pay the arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from due date till its realization, by issuing writ of mandamus and justice be done.” 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein prayer has been made to dismiss the present petition on the ground of delay and laches. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in year 1975. After completion of 32 years of service, petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector on 12.09.2009. Petitioner retired from the post of Inspector on 31.12.2011 after attaining the age of superannuation. 4. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-grant of benefits under ACPs. Petitioner initially filed representation seeking the grant of benefits under the 8-16-24-32 ACP Scheme, which came to be decided by the Divisional Manager, HRTC Mandi, vide order dated 03.11.2023 with the observation that benefits of 8-16-24-34 ACP in 3 terms of notification dated 15.12.1998 framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh will be granted only to those employees, whose overall service record is adjudged as good and employees, who clear such test or acquire the required qualification. 5. As per reply filed by the respondents, during scrutiny of record/ACRs of the petitioner at Divisional Level, it was found that out of total 38 ACRs up to the date of his promotion, only 14 were found “good”, which was less than 50%, accordingly, the petitioner was held not entitled for the benefits under the 24 and 32 years ACP Scheme. Petitioner herein was retired on 31.12.2011 and for the first time, he filed representation in the year 2022 i.e. after a delay of eleven years. After rejection of the representation in year 2022, petitioner approached this Court in year 2024, there is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua inordinate delay in approaching the competent Court of law. 6. It is well settled that fence sitter cannot be extended any relief by Court of law. Admittedly, petitioner remained a fence sitter and after inordinate delay of thirteen years approached this Court for grant of relief, as noted herein above. There is no explanation available on record that why the petitioner remained silent till the year 2024. 4 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, 2014 AIR SCW 6519, held that relief cannot be extended to the persons, who have approached the Court after long delay, that too, who are fence sitters. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the judgment herein: "24. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated June 22, 1987. The respondents before us did not challenge these cancellation orders till the year 1996, i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined the service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only there was unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years, it would be totally 5 unjust to direct the appointment to give them the appointment as of today, i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above.” 8. Even Division Bench of this Court, while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, has held in LPA No.604 of 2011, titled Karan Singh Pathania vs. State of H.P. and Others that “fencer cannot be held entitled to any relief”. 9. In I. Chuba Jamir & Ors. versus State of Nagaland & Ors., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5162, the Apex Court has held that the inordinate delay is a very valid and important consideration. It is apt to reproduce para 17 of the judgment herein: “17. On a careful consideration of the materials on record and the submissions made by Mr. Goswami we are unable to accept the claims of the appellants-writ petitioners. In our view the inordinate delay of 7 or 8 years by the appellants- writ petitioners in approaching the High Court was a very valid and important consideration. This aspect of the matter was also brought to the notice of the Single Judge but he proceeded with the matter without saying anything on that issue, one way or the other. It was, therefore, perfectly open to the Division Bench to take into consideration the conduct of the appellants-writ petitioners and the 6 consequences, apart from the legality and validity, of the reliefs granted to them by the learned single Judge.” 10. In Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Ors., 2011 AIR SCW 2835, similar principle has been enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held as under:- 15. In our view, even if the objection of delay and laches had not been raised in the affidavits filed on behalf of the BDA and the State Government, the High Court was duty bound to take cognizance of the long time gap of 9 years between the issue of declaration under Section 6(1) and filing of the writ petition and declined relief to respondent No.1 on the ground that he was guilty of laches because the acquired land had been utilized for implementing the residential scheme and third party rights had been created. The unexplained delay of about six years between the passing of award and filing of writ petition was also sufficient for refusing to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition. xxx xxxx xxx 25. In this case, the acquired land was utilized for implementing Tulsi Nagar Residential Scheme inasmuch as after carrying out necessary development i.e. construction of roads, laying electricity, water and sewer lines etc. the BDA 7 carved out plots, constructed flats for economically weaker sections and lower income group, invited applications for allotment of the plots and flats from general as well as reserved categories and allotted the same to eligible persons. In the process, the BDA not only incurred huge expenditure but also created third party rights. In this scenario, the delay of nine years from the date of publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1) and almost six years from the date of passing of award should have been treated by the High Court as more than sufficient for denying equitable relief to respondent No.1.” 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly being hopelessly time barred. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 08, 2025 (Sunil)