( 2025:HHC:43981 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.779 of 2025 Decided on: 11th December, 2025 Balkar Singh .......Appellant versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has fairly conceded that the similar issue has already been decided by us in LPA No.762 of 2025, whereby we have dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dated 15.05.2025 in CWP No.4822 of 2025 titled as Pritam Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 4th December, 2025, while upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge that on account of delay and laches, the principle of acquiescence of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:43981 ) 2 pay protection could not be sought. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “2. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge as such was that the appropriate remedy had not been taken within time since there was an order dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-3), wherein directions had been issued as such to take over the services being an aided employee to the post for which he fulfills the requirement of R&P Rules from the date of joining, and consequential monetary benefit was also allowed to the appellant w.e.f. 01.04.2012. 3. The same having not been challenged and the appellant had filed only Execution Petition No.247 of 2022, which was also disposed of on 08.09.2023 as fully satisfied. It was, thus, submitted that the stale issue could not be allowed to be raked up at this belated stage. 4. It is to be noticed that the grouse of the petitioner as such had been firstly raised when he preferred the CWP No.5130 of 2013 in this Court and restricted his case to the benefits which was to be granted in terms of CWP No.6210 of 2013, titled Kewal Kumar and others VS. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-1). 5. Resultantly, the services, as noticed, were duly taken over in compliance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27.07.2014 (Annexure P- 3). 6. Apparently, there were already guidelines dated 20.07.2011, issued for pay protection, on the basis of which, no action had been taken and the appellant only filed the Execution Petition No.247 of 2022 and accordingly the same was closed on 08.09.2023, on account of the fact that the requisite sanction had been granted and the financial benefits had to be paid to the appellant. It is only thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge and then the issue of pay protection was raised. 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the writ petition, wherein there is not even a whisper in the ( 2025:HHC:43981 ) 3 averments to show as to how he has been put to any loss or how the pay which he had been earlier drawing and which had been reduced on account of his services being taken over by the State. Apparently, no cause of action seems to have been pleaded on the basis of which the writ petition could have been filed. 8. We had passed the following order on 20.11.2025:- “Let the records of the Execution Petition No.247 of 2022 titled Pritam Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others be tagged alongwith this LPA. Apparently no particular cause of action had been pleaded in the writ petition as to from which date the writ petitioner’s pay had been reduced after taking over of his services. Accordingly, the proceedings are deferred for 04.12.2025.” 9. A perusal of the Execution Petition also filed in earlier point of time would go on to show that nowhere it has been mentioned as to how, the appellant has been put in disadvantageous position by taking over and whether the instructions dated 20.07.2011 had not been followed in letter and spirit. It is settled principle that cause of action is a bundle of facts, the said facts have not been pleaded. 10. We are of the considered opinion that apart from the ground of delay also in absence of any specific averments having been made regarding the loss to the petitioner, the writ petition itself was also not liable to be entertained on account of any specific pleadings. 11. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 15.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in CWP No.2382 of 2025 wherein the only difference is that the services of the writ- petitioner were taken over on 02.09.2014 and the ( 2025:HHC:43981 ) 4 consequential benefits were also granted to him w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and Execution Petition No. 244 of 2022 had also been disposed of on 08.09.2023 and thereafter fresh petition had been filed. 3. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to take a difference view of the matter and the appeal is accordingly dismissed, against the judgment dated 26.03.2025 passed in CWP No.2382 of 2025 titled as Balkar Singh vs. State of H.P and others. 4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) December 11, 2025 Judge (naveen)