1 2025:HHC:36365 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.640 of 2025 Decided on: 29 th October , 2025 __________________________________________________ Tilak Raj ....appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ...respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby CWP(OA) No.4948 of 2020 titled Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, was dismissed, wherein the prayer as such was to treat the period of two years during which the applicant did his JBT Training as study leave and to pay full salary for these two years, as per the prayer made in the original application filed in the year 2018. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The order dated 07/10.02.2016 passed by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, Police Headquarters, Shimla, was subject matter of challenge in the original application, which had been filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. 3. The Learned Single Judge noticed that the cause of action arose when the petitioner had availed leave from 12.10.2006 to 07.08.2007 and from 08.08.2007 to 05.10.2008, which he had availed by way of earned leave and extraordinary leave. It was thus held that the claim as such was barred by delay and laches as the OA was filed in July 2018. It was also noticed that on account of an order passed in T.A No.3681 of 2015 dated 25.08.2015 arising out of CWP No.2622 of 2014, the directions had been given to decide his representation, but that could not condone the delay and therefore the petition was dismissed. 4. The Apex Court in Government of India and another Versus P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613, has held that by resorting to “decide my representation” mantra, the limitations are being extended, which is not permissible and that is what the learned Single Judge has exactly done by declining to entertain the petition on the ground that even if the matter had to be filed before the Administrative Tribunal, the limitation prescribed would be a 3 period of one and a half years from the date when the cause of action arose. Since, the cause of action arose way back in 2006, merely on account of getting a decision on 07/10.02.2016, the stale issue could not have been revived and therefore we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 5. The ancillary argument which has now been raised by the counsel as to grant increments for the period when the applicant was pursuing his JBT training, either on extraordinary leave or earned leave and which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, is also without any basis. There is nothing in the body of the original application that the said relief was made on the basis of any provision of law and it is only in the prayer clause the said claim has been raised. 6. In the absence of any specific provision under the Service Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the matter could not have been adjudicated upon, since it was an original application filed and the pleadings have to be specific that on what basis the claim has been made. There could not be any rebuttal by the State as such in the absence of any such averments having been made in the body of the original application. Even otherwise, the same principle would also apply regarding the issue of 4 increments on the ground of delay and laches, as the period of availing study leave was way back in 2006 and no effort had been made since then. 7. A perusal of the earlier order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No.3681 of 2015 would go on to show that the issue was only regarding the grant of study leave, for which the writ petition had been moved and there was no issue regarding the grant of increments. 8. Having also foregone the said claim on an earlier occasion, the same could not now be raised. For these reasons also, we do not find any ground as such to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. Keeping in view the observations made above, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 29 th October , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge