JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, addressed to Superintending Engineer, HPPWD, 4th Circle Shimla, whereby the representation having been filed by him with regard to his promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 31.08.2015, came to be rejected on the ground of delay. 2. Though careful perusal of afore order clearly reveals that petitioner herein was entitled to be granted promotion as Draughtsman w.e.f. 31.08.2015, but yet prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through representation, as detailed herein above, came to be rejected on the ground that petitioner never raised any protest, rather he without there being agitation, accepted his promotion to the post in question in the year 2019. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that in the year 1999, petitioner was engaged as Work Inspector on daily wage basis. After eight years i.e. on 05.11.2008, petitioner was regularized against the post of Work Inspector. Vide notification dated 30.07.2014, respondent-Department circulated Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil), wherein category of Work Inspector is also made one of the feeding category. In the year 2015, DPC held for promotion to the posts of Junior Draughtsman, total 50 candidates belonging to the feeder category of Work Inspector (the category to which petitioner belongs), who possessed at least two years Certificate in the trade of Draughtsmanship (Civil) with five years service along with candidates of other feeder categories were considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman and found suitable. 4. Though petitioner was also found fit in the panel of 50 candidates as approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but at the first instance, total 41 candidates from the feeder category (Work Inspector), 6 candidates from Class-IV Industrial/ Non- Industrial category and 7 candidates from Class-III Industrial/ Non- Industrial categories were promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman, vide order dated 31.08.2015, as a result thereof, petitioner along with other eight similarly situated persons, who though were eligible to be promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman, were denied promotion. Since factum with regard to promotion of seven persons belonging to other non-feeding category i.e. Class-III Industrial/Non-Industrial category never came to the notice of the petitioner, he along with other persons remained silent. 5. Vide order dated 30.10.2019, petitioner came to be promoted as Junior Draughtsman along with other 38 candidates from the feeding category of Work Inspector. On 08.11.2019, petitioner joined as Junior Draughtsman in the office of Executive Engineer Shimla Division No.1. On 22.06.2020, respondents issued seniority list of Junior Draughtsman as stood on 30.09.2019 and thereafter, petitioner came to know that in the year 2015 some persons were promoted ahead of him against the post of Junior Draughtsman. Besides above, petitioner also came to know in the month of August, 2023 that two persons namely Yogender Sharma and Veer Chand, who were similarly situate to the petitioner and were inadvertently left out despite there being recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, had made representation to the department claiming promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman from back date i.e. 2015. They were subsequently granted promotion, pursuant to orders passed by competent Court of law, as such petitioner filed representation dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure P-12), praying therein that he deserves to be granted promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman w.e.f 2015 on the basis of recommendation made by Departmental Promotion Committee held in year 2015. Since representation filed by the petitioner came to be rejected, vide order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-13), primarily on the ground of delay, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-13) may kindly be quashed and set aside and further respondents may kindly be directed to grant back date promotion as Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 31.08.2015 with all consequential benefits including seniority, increment, arrear of salary etc.” 6. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Junior Draftsman in year 2015 along with other 41 persons, but on account of illegality committed by the respondents at that time, he along with other eight persons was left out for no fault of him, as a result thereof, he is suffering continuously. Mr. Khidtta, submitted that factum with regard to promotion of seven persons, who were otherwise not eligible, which fact is otherwise evident from the reply filed by the respondents, came to the knowledge of the petitioner after his own promotion to the post of Junior Draftsman in year 2019. He submitted that combined seniority list of Junior Draughtsman was circulated in year 2020, wherein seven persons, who were not eligible but were granted promotion in 2015, figured senior to the petitioner. He submitted that similarly situate persons, who though were required to be granted promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman in year 2014 along with petitioner, filed representation and ultimately with the intervention of Competent Court of law, they were granted promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman w.e.f 2015 and as such, petitioner, being similarly situate, deserves similar treatment. While refuting the ground of delay raised on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Khidtta, submitted that though petitioner, prior to circulation of combined seniority list of Junior Draughtsman, had no intimation that seven persons have been wrongly granted promotion ahead of him and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for him to file representation prior to circulation of combined seniority list. He further submitted that immediately after the acquiring knowledge of wrong promotion given to the seven persons as well as promotion granted to two similarly situated persons, he filed representation but that wrongly came to be rejected on the ground of delay. He submitted that since on account of his being denied promotion in year 2015, petitioner is suffering continuous loss. Plea of delay and laches otherwise cannot be attempted to be raised on behalf of the respondents. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of para 8 of the petition:- “8. He submitted that since on account of his being denied promotion in year 2015, petitioner is suffering continuous loss. Plea of delay and laches otherwise cannot be attempted to be raised on behalf of the respondents. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of para 8 of the petition:- “8. That it is pertinent to mention here that respondent department intentionally with a view to favour candidates belonging to different category i.e. Class-III Industrial and Non-Industrial, who were not feeding category in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Draughtsman, issued separate office order of the same date i.e. 31.08.2015, which was not even uploaded in the official website, whereby 7 persons were also promoted as Junior Draughtsman.” 7. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents, attempted to argue that fence sitters cannot be granted any kind of relief. He submitted that though there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner from day one had knowledge that he was wrongly denied promotion from the year 2015, but he remained silent and accepted promotion against the post of Junior Draughtsman in the year 2019 without any protest. He submitted that even if it is presumed that petitioner had acquired knowledge with regard to wrong promotion given to seven persons in year 2020, there is no explanation that what prevented the petitioner from making representation in the year 2020 itself. He submitted that since petitioner has not approached this Court well within reasonable time, petition having been filed by him deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He further submitted that petitioner neither challenged the seniority list nor laid any challenge to promotion order dated 31.08.2015, whereby he along with other seven persons was erroneously left out. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that petitioner along with seven similarly situate persons was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman in the year 2015, pursuant to recommendation made by Departmental Promotion Committee held in that year. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that petitioner along with seven similarly situate persons was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman in the year 2015, pursuant to recommendation made by Departmental Promotion Committee held in that year. Total 50 candidates belonging to the feeder category of Work Inspector (the category to which petitioner belongs) a/w candidates of other feeder categories were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman. Though petitioner was found fit in the panel of 50 candidates as approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but interestingly, department at first instance gave promotion to 41 candidates from the category of Work Inspector, 6 candidates from Class-IV Industrial/ Non-Industrial category and 7 candidates from non-feeding category i.e. Class-III Industrial/ Non- Industrial categories, vide order dated 31.08.2015. Though one thing is quite apparent that in the year 2015, Departmental Promotion Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman, but at that time he was wrongly denied promotion by the department, which fact is otherwise apparent from the impugned order, relevant paras whereof are extracted herein below:- “Record further reveals that during the DPC held during 2015, total 50 candidates belonging to the feeder category of Work Inspector (the category to which applicant belongs) who possesses at least two years certificate in the trade of Draughtsmanship (Civil) with five year service a/w candidates of other feeder categories were considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of JDM and found suitable. The applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar was also found fit in the panel of 50 candidates as approved by the DPC. In the first instance, total 41 candidates from this category (Work Inspector), 6 candidates from Class-IV industrial / Non Industrial category and 7 candidates of Industrial/ Non Industrial categories were promoted to the post of JDM vide order dated 31.08.2015. In fact, in the R&P Rules of JDM as notified on 31.07.2014, there was no provision for promotion/ placement of Class-III Industrial/ Non Industrial category to the post of JDM and in this regard matter was also taken up with the Govt. In fact, in the R&P Rules of JDM as notified on 31.07.2014, there was no provision for promotion/ placement of Class-III Industrial/ Non Industrial category to the post of JDM and in this regard matter was also taken up with the Govt. vide various communication dated 16.04.2015, 11.05.2015, 11.06.2015 & 8.07.2015 for making provision in Rules for promotion of this category to the post of JDM but same could not be approved. However, DPC in its meeting found 7 incumbents fit for promotion to the post of JDM though they belongs to the feeder category of Class-III Industrial/ Non Industrial and there was no provision for their promotion in the rules.” 9. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid reasoning given in the impugned order that seven candidates from non-feeding category i.e. Class-III Industrial/ Non-Industrial categories were wrongly given promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman, vide order dated 31.08.2015. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that factum with regard to wrong committed by the respondents had come to the notice of the petitioner in the year 2015 itself, but it appears that there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the name of the petitioner did not appear in the final seniority list of Junior Draughtsman as stood on 30.09.2019 issued, vide office letter dated 22.06.2020 (Annexure P-11) and prior to issuance of final seniority list, no tentative seniority list was ever circulated, there was no occasion, if any, for the petitioner to know that ineligible persons had been promoted ahead of him. Factum with regard to promotion given to the seven person came to notice of the petitioner, when similarly situated persons namely Yogender Sharma and Veer Chand (from the feeding category) submitted representation to the department, which ultimately came to be decided pursuant to the intervention of the competent Court of law. Otherwise also, seniority list of Junior Draughtsman as stood on 30.09.2019 was issued on 22.06.2020, whereas petitioner was promoted on 30.10.2019, as such, there was no occasion for him to know the factum of wrong promotion given to seven persons. Otherwise also, seniority list of Junior Draughtsman as stood on 30.09.2019 was issued on 22.06.2020, whereas petitioner was promoted on 30.10.2019, as such, there was no occasion for him to know the factum of wrong promotion given to seven persons. It was only after the promotion of two similarly situate persons, petitioner came to know that he ought to have been granted promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman in the year 2015, and as such he made representation dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure P-12), which ultimately came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-13). 10. If the reply filed by the respondents is read in its entirety, there is no dispute that petitioner was required to be granted promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman w.e.f 2015, but inadvertently seven persons from other category, who were otherwise not eligible, came to be granted promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman and petitioner along with other persons, who was entitled to be given promotion w.e.f 2015, was left out. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of following para of the reply filed by the respondents:- “Thereafter the respondents have initiated the process for filing up the posts of Junior Draughtsman by promotion and placement and issued letter dated 20.12.2014, whereby the service particulars of all eligible incumbents from the field offices were requisitioned. After receipt of all the service particulars, 156 number of Work Inspector and 39 number of Class-IV Industrial and Non-Industrial incumbents were found eligible for promotion/ placement to the post of Junior Draughtsman. Thereafter, VCC and ACRs of 50 number of Work Inspectors and 41 number of Class-IV industrial and Non-Industrial incumbents were called vide letter dated 01.4.2015 as per availability of posts. The name of petitioner was appearing at Sr. No. 50 in the category of Work Inspector (Junior Technician). It is further submitted that only 41 candidates from this category of Work Inspector were promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman vide order dated 31.8.2015. Later on two other candidates from this category of Work Inspector were promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman vide order dated 20.5.2016. Thereafter, only six incumbents were left in the panel who were also senior to the petitioner. In the year, 2018, the respondents have again initiated the process for filling up the posts of Junior Draughtsman by way of promotion. Thereafter, only six incumbents were left in the panel who were also senior to the petitioner. In the year, 2018, the respondents have again initiated the process for filling up the posts of Junior Draughtsman by way of promotion. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil) vide order dated 30.10.2019. The petitioner has also accepted this offer of promotion and he joined the duty as Junior Draughtsman without any protest. It is further relevant to mention here that the respondents have circulated the provisional seniority list as on 30.6.2019 vide letter dated 01.01.2020. After attending all the objections in provisional seniority, the seniority was finalized and circulated vide letter dated 22.6.2020. But the petitioner has never raised any claim during this entire period and in the year, 2023 he claimed promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman from retrospective date. The representation of petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 10.10.2023 Annexure P-13 on the ground of delay. The petitioner has not explained the reasons for this long delay. It appears that the petitioner himself remained sleeping over his claim and now after delay of about nine years he has filed the present writ petition. The circumstances have changed after promotion orders issued prior to the petitioner. Now he cannot claim the relief which is not permissible under the law in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case Hari Dev vs. State of HP & ors. and Suresh Kapoor vs. State of HP & ors. There are other senior incumbents to the petitioner who will also claim the retrospective promotion w.e.f. year, 2015. In view of these facts and circumstances, the petition is nothing, but an afterthought and the same deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 11. It is quite apparent from the afore reply filed by the respondents that name of the petitioner was appearing at serial No.50 in the category of Work Inspector (Junior Technician) and 41 candidates from the category of Work Inspector were promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman, vide order dated 31.08.2015. Later on two other candidates from the above category were promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman, vide order dated 20.05.2016 and thereafter, only six incumbents were left in the panel, who were also senior to the petitioner. 12. Later on two other candidates from the above category were promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman, vide order dated 20.05.2016 and thereafter, only six incumbents were left in the panel, who were also senior to the petitioner. 12. In nutshell, claim of the petitioner has been attempted to be defeated on the ground of delay. It has been averred in the reply filed by the respondents that petitioner remained silent about his claim and now after a delay of about nine years, he cannot be granted relief to which he is otherwise eligible. 13. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that the moment, factum with regard to wrong promotion given to seven persons from non-feeding category came to the notice of the petitioner, he started inquiring that for what reasons, he was not granted promotion in the year 2015, despite there being recommendation made by Departmental Promotion Committee held in that year. Since factum with regard to grant of promotion to two similarly situated persons, who at first instance were left out along with petitioner came to be notice of the petitioner, he also filed representation to the department. 14. Leaving everything aside, impugned order dated 10.10.2023, if read in its entirety, nowhere disputes factum with regard to eligibility of the petitioner for promotion to the post Junior Draughtsman w.e.f 2015. An attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. Though this Court is fully convinced with the explanation rendered on record by learned counsel for the petitioner for approaching competent Court of law after a delay of eight years, but even otherwise this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that on account of his being denied promotion in the year 2015, petitioner, who is otherwise senior to as many as seven persons, who were given wrong promotion in the year 2015, shall suffer huge financial loss as well as a loss of seniority. 15. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it has been held as under:- "7. 15. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it has been held as under:- "7. To summarize, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." 16. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, titled as Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel Vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein it has been held as under:- “14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to Court.” 17. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to Court.” 17. Careful perusal of above decisions shows that in the matters of recurring cause of action, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim subsists. In the case at hand, the petitioner is suffering recurring losses thus, keeping in view his status and plight, it would be better and just to ignore the delay in filing the petition at hand. 18. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-13) is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner against the post of Junior Draftsman w.e.f 2015, pursuant to recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee held in that year, as a result thereof, petitioner herein shall rank higher in seniority than the persons, who were wrongly granted promotion in the year 2015. Since petitioner never worked against the post of Junior Draftsman w.e.f. 2015 till 2019, he shall not be granted any monetary benefits for the afore period, but such period shall be counted for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.