2025:HHC:9182 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.350 of 2024 Decided on: 04.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ Charan Dass Modgil ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge [Oral] Appellant has filed this appeal for dismissal of his claim for pay scale of Rs.400-660/- vide judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed in CWPOA No.2321 of 2019, titled Shri Charan Dass versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 2. Claim of appellant is that he was appointed as Mechanic Operator, vide Office Order dated 23.06.1982 in the pay scale of Rs.400-10-450/15-525/15-600/20- 660/-, with further submission that similar situated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:9182 - 2 - person Santokh Singh who on re-organization of the Sate was transferred from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh, as Mechanic Operator was granted pay scale of Rs.450- 800/- after his retirement in March 1982, and being a similar situated appointed person, appellant is also entitled for pay scale of Rs.450-800/-. 3. At the time of appointment of appellant, pay scale for Cinema Operator, Mechanic-cum-Operator and Mechanic Operator was Rs.510-800/-, Rs.450-800/- and Rs.400-660/-, respectively. 4. It is apparent from the documents placed on record that pay scale of the post of Mechanic Operator against which appellant was appointed at the time of his appointment was Rs.400-660/- and Rs.450-800/- was available to the Mechanic-cum-Operator. Admittedly, recruitment of the appellant was against the post of Mechanic Operator. 5. Without going into the correctness of the pay scale granted to Santokh Singh, even if considering that the pay scale to Santokh Singh was granted against the post of Mechanic-cum-Operator despite his appointment as Mechanic Operator, extension of service benefits 2025:HHC:9182 - 3 - wrongly given to an employee does not entitle other employee to receive the same benefits. Two wrong cannot create a right in favour of a person. 6. It is also apt to record from the reply that representations of the appellant for granting pay scale Rs.450-800/- were rejected on 12.08.1987, 25.09.2005 and 01.05.2006, whereas petition was preferred by the appellant on 01.12.2011. Though, repeated representations do not extend the limitation or condone the delay and laches in approaching the Court, however, even if, it is considered that appellant was having right to file appeal then also he has not assailed rejection of his representations, referred supra. 7. Therefore, apart from merit, not only for delay and laches, but for not assailing the rejection of his claim vide orders dated 12.08.1987, 25.09.2005 and 01.05.2006, appellant has no merit in his case. 8. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any other perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Appeal stands disposed of along with pending 2025:HHC:9182 - 4 - miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 04, 2025 [Shivender]