2025:HHC:27828 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.71 of 2025 Decided on: 13.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sadh Ram ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.12064 of 2024, titled Sadh Ram versus State of H.P. & others, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the earlier representation of the petitioner had already been rejected on 10.04.2012 [Annexure P-2]. Thereafter, on the same cause of action, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.02.2016, which was rejected on 29.03.2016 on the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:27828 - 2 - ground that his representation already stood rejected. After a period of 08 years, the writ petition came to be filed in 2024 whereby the said orders were challenged and benefit of his pay to be equated with his juniors with all benefits incidental along with arrears and all retiral benefits were prayed to be revised. 2. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge relied upon the reasons recorded in the order dated 10.04.2012, wherein it was noted that the salary of the appellant-Sadh Ram, Platoon Commander (Retd.) was lower on account of his having not opted for grant of increment in the revised pay scales resulting in fixation of his pay in the old pay scales. Whereas, in comparison to one Bhup Chand, Platoon Commander, who had exercised the option for increment in the revised pay scales and thus his pay had been fixed at a higher level. The ready reckoner was also referred to in the order of 10.04.2012. It was further clarified therein that Sadh Ram was junior, and, therefore, no pay anomaly could arise whereby a junior would draw a higher pay than a senior. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner was serving 2025:HHC:27828 - 3 - as a Platoon Commander under 7th Battalion Kullu and retired from service on 31.01.2011. The revision of pay scales took effect from 01.01.1996, and, as per the petitioner’s case he had preferred several representations and the decision was taken on 10.04.2012. 4. After a lapse of 12 years, he has now taken the plea that, had he been asked to exercise the option regarding the revised pay scales, the result would have been different but it was never specifically asked. Therefore, prejudice has been caused and he is getting lesser pension and retirement benefits. 5. Though counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in M.R. Gupta versus Union of India and Others (1995) 5 SCC 628, to submit that the matter constitutes a continuing cause of action, as such, and that the merit should be examined and the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine without calling for a reply. However, we are of the considered opinion that it was a peculiar case whereby the appellant was in service and in such circumstances, the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that a fresh cause of action arises every 2025:HHC:27828 - 4 - month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. 6. In the said case, apparently the employee had approached the Tribunal after a period of 11 years, and the claim was dismissed being time barred. In such circumstances, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that right of a government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure is a valuable right. 7. However, in the present case, as noticed, the appellant had already superannuated on 31.01.2011, and the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end. The representation was made thereafter to correct re-fixation of the pay and specific reasons were given in the order dated 10.04.2012 which was never contested at that point of time. A fresh application was thereafter moved in 2016 seeking to revive a dead cause of action and after getting the said order on 20.02.2016, the writ petition was thereafter filed after 08 years. 8. Thus, it is the case of total inaction at the hand of the writ petitioner and therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in any 2025:HHC:27828 - 5 - manner in declining to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Once relationship of employer and employee had been severed and during the period of service no effort had been made to get the pay fixed and the alleged cause of action also had arisen when the first pay revision took place on 01.01.1986 and then on 01.01.1996 and thereafter as per the notification issued by the Department of Finance, dated 20.01.1998. 9. In Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, AIR 2024 SC 2717, it has been held that the person who approaches the Court belatedly and sleeps over his rights, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further observed that there is no fixed period provided for filing of the writ petition and if the writ petitioner allowed his right to be drifted away, the issue was not liable to be decided on merits, while setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restoring the orders of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition. The reliance had been placed by the Apex Court in Tridip Kumar 2025:HHC:27828 - 6 - Dingal and others vs. State of W.B and others (2009) 1 SCC 768 and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and another vs. K.Thangappan and another (2006) 4 SCC 322 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & amp; Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Baba (2014) 4 SCC 108 to come to the said conclusion. 10. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned Single Judge warranting interference so as to call upon the respondents to submit a reply at this belated stage on account of cause of action which had long since died in the year 2012. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 13, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]