1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19768 of 2025 Decided on: 06.01.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prabal Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma and Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents No. 2 to 4 has placed on record instructions dated 06.01.2025 alongwith compendium of documents. Same are placed on record. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Petitioner aged 58 years instituted this writ petition on 25.09.2025 seeking following substantive relief:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the benefit of promotion to the post of Head Teacher to the petitioner during the services rendered in the Sanskrit School under respondent Trust from the year 1997 till 2014-2015 i.e. prior to the up-gradation of the Sanskrit School to the College and also give him the benefit of stagnation scale/ACP from due date with all consequential benefits.” The case set up by the petitioner is that; i) Temple Trust, Jawalamukhi -respondent No.2 has been created under the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 to manage the affairs of Sri Maa Jawalamukhi Temple. ii) The administration and financial control of the trust lies with the Government of Himachal Pradesh through Department of Language, Art & Culture. The Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra is the Commissioner (Temples). iii) Petitioner was appointed as Jyotish Acharya in Sanskrit School at Jawalamukhi on 05.04.1997. Said Sanskrit School was upgraded as Sri Maa Sanskrit College (Maha Vidyalaya) from the academic session 2014-15 vide communication dated 31.07.2014. Petitioner thereafter, was deployed as Assistant Professor in the aforesaid Sanskrit College. Petitioner also held additional charge of the post of 3 Principal of the aforesaid college from the year 2025. Pursuant to the directions issued in CWP No. 6763/2025 instituted by the petitioner, he has been allowed to work till the age of 60 years in accordance with law. The petitioner’s grievance raised in this petition is that since his initial appointment in service as Sanskrit teacher w.e.f. year 1997, he had stagnated on the same post till the up-gradation of the School to College from academic session 2014-15. According to the petitioner, he stagnated on the post of teacher in the erstwhile Sanskrit School for 18 long years. He was neither given any promotion nor any benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). With this grievance petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to give him promotion to the post of Head Teacher in the erstwhile Sanskrit school from year 1997 till 2014-15 i.e. prior to the up-gradation of Sanskrit School to College. Petitioner has also prayed for grant of benefits under the ACPS from due date. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties considered the case file as well as instructions placed on record. Petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Head Teacher from year 1997 till the School’s up-gradation to College in the year 2014 is stale. No reasons have come 4 forth in the writ petition for petitioner's not taking the appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance at the relevant time. With respect to the petitioner’s claim of ACPS, instructions placed on record by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 are to the effect that respondent Temple Trust has already granted all admissible benefits under applicable ACPS to the petitioner from time to time. The pay fixation of the petitioner evidencing the aforesaid fact has also been placed on record. According to the respondents, there is no provision under the applicable rules for granting any further ACPS benefit beyond the benefit of 4-9-14 years already granted to the petitioner under the applicable ACPS. Taking note of above, claim of the petitioner lacks merit. The grievance of the petitioner is mis- founded and otherwise also suffers from unexplained delay & laches. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2026 Judge yogesh