( 2025:HHC:29736 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2549 of 2019. Decided on : 1 st September, 2025. Fateh Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:- i) That a writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing the impugned letter Annexure P- 13 dated 12.01.2011. ii) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petiitoner on promotion as head constable by giving him special increment on completion of 18 years of service in the same cadre and post. iii) That in the alternative, respondents may be directed to grant benefit of stepping up of pay of petitioner in the cadre of head constable at par with his junior Late Shri Milap Chand and calculate and pay the arrears of fixation to the petitioner. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:29736 ) iv) That the respondents may be directed to calculate and pay the arrears of pay fixation etc.” 2. The petitioner was recruited and appointed as constable in the H.P. State Police on 22nd September, 1971. He was promoted to the rank of Head Constable w.e.f 01.08.1989. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had rendered 17 years 10 months and 9 days’ service as Constable and had he not been promoted w.e.f. 01.08.1989, he would have become entitled to 2nd proficiency step up increment on completion of 18 years’ of service as Constable. He submits that on account of his promotion as Head Constable w.e.f. 09.08.1989, his chances for 2nd proficiency step up were taken away. It is also the case of the petitioner that at the time of promotion he was not given option for fixation of pay under FR 22 and without seeking such option his pay was fixed from the date of promotion i.e. from 01.08.1989. Thus, the petitioner further submits that had such option been given to the petitioner, he could have opted for fixation of pay on receipt of next increment which was due on 01.04.1990 and in this manner would have been saved from financial loss. 3 ( 2025:HHC:29736 ) 4. It is averred in the petition that immediately after promotion as Head Constable, petitioner had approached his Commanding Officer, who had assured the petitioner that he would be given step up in the pay on promotion of his juniors. 5. The petitioner was further promoted to the rank of ASI in January, 2003 and at that stage, he had submitted representation seeking step up of pay w.e.f. 01.06.1990 on which date his junior, Constable Milap Chand, stood promoted to the rank of Head Constable. Another representation to the same effect is stated to have been submitted by petitioner on 21.02.2006. 6. Petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2006 and the instant petition was filed in the year 2011, on the basis of communication dated 12.01.2011, Annexure P-13, whereby the representation of petitioner was rejected being time barred. 7. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. On merits, it has been stated that since the petitioner had accepted his promotion to the rank of Head Constable w.e.f. 01.08.1989, his entitlement to 2nd proficiency step had ceased. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected vide impugned Annexure P-13 being time barred. 4 ( 2025:HHC:29736 ) 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 9. The petitioner, as per his own case had acquired the cause of action in the year 1989 when he was promoted to the post of Head Constable w.e.f. 01.08.1989 without extending option under FR-22. The junior of petitioner, Constable Milap Chand, was promoted as Head Constable on 01.06.1990. Petitioner himself has made specific averment that it was promised by his Commanding Officer that on promotion of junior incumbent step up would be allowed in the pay of petitioner, therefore, second time the cause of action became available to petitioner on 01.06.1990. 10. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the petitioner remained silent till January, 2003, with respect to alleged injustice caused to him. As noticed above, petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in 2003 and at that stage he preferred submission of representation for the first time. The next representation was filed by the petitioner in the year 2006 and in the same year he retired. The instant petition was filed in 2011. Thus, the claim raised by the petitioner is clearly barred by principle of delay and laches. Even after his retirement in January, 2006, petitioner approached the Court in the year 2011. 5 ( 2025:HHC:29736 ) 11. In the circumstances, as noticed above, the raking up of issue by the petitioner by submission of first representation after about 14 years of cause of action cannot be countenanced more particularly when there is no plausible explanation for such a huge delay. It is more than settled that mere filing of representation does not create a fresh cause of action or will not extend the period of limitation. In result, the filing of petition in 2011 by the petitioner for the cause of action that had allegedly accrued in his favour during the years 1989 and 1990 cannot be held to be maintainable. 11. Thus, without going into the merits of the claims raised by the petitioner, the petition is dismissed being barred by principle of delay and laches. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 1st September, 2025. (jai)