( 2025:HHC:22913 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 4130 of 2019 a/w CWPOA No. 4309 of 2019. Decided on : 16 th July, 2025. 1. CWPOA No. 4130 of 2019. C.M. Badhaik ...Petitioner. Versus HPSEBL & Anr. ....Respondents. 2. CWPOA No. 4309 of 2019. Dev Raj Dhiman ...Petitioner. Versus HPSEBL & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Loveneesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Both these petitions are being decided by a common order as identical questions of facts and law are involved. 2. The respondent-board had taken a decision to grant selection grade to the officers in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer vide office order dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:22913 ) 28.09.1981. Certain clarifications were issued at subsequent stage. For the purpose of controversy involved in the instant petitions, suffice it to say that the petitioners were eligible for grant of benefit of selection grade in terms of office dated 28.09.1981. The respondent-board vide order dated 06.10.1986 allowed the benefit of selection grade to the petitioners with effect from 23.02.1980. 3. Both the petitioners belong to scheduled caste category. Since, the respondent-board had taken a decision to grant the benefit of reservations to the scheduled castes and schedule tribe categories in the matter of grant of benefit of selection grade, the petitioners claim that they were entitled for grant of benefit of selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1978 instead of 23.02.1980 as granted to them. 4. Noticeably, after the grant of benefit of selection grade to the petitioners vide order dated 06.10.1986, the petitioners raised the issue of their entitlement for grant of benefit of selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1978 on 23.04.1997 for the first time. Though, the representation made by the petitioner that has been placed on record as Annexure P-10, is dated 27.09.2003, however, in the same representation, reference to previous correspondences/representations has 3 ( 2025:HHC:22913 ) been made and as per this detail the first correspondence can be taken to be of 23.04.1997. Meaning thereby that from the year 1986 till 1997, for a long period of 11 years, the petitioners did not raise any voice or claim. That being so, the claim of the petitioners is highly belated and is hit by principle of delay and laches. There is no explanation as to why it took so long for the petitioners to raise a claim. 5. It is more than settled that the stale claims like these, unless delay is satisfactorily explained, are required to be declined for the simple reason that after such a long period, various other implications arise which directly or indirectly may affect the third party rights. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners in CWPOA No. 4309 of 2019 that the representation of petitioner was rejected by the competent authority on 01.08.2011 and on such count the petitions are within limitation. The contention so raised needs to be rejected for the reason that when the initiation of representations by the petitioners itself was not within reasonable time, any decision taken on such belated representation by the authority will not bring fresh lease of life. 4 ( 2025:HHC:22913 ) 7. In result, petitioners are held not entitled for the relief as claimed by them. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 16th July, 2025. (jai)