2025:HHC:6315 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.72 of 2025 Decided on:13.03.2025 __________________________________________________________ Ranbir Singh ...Appellant Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others. ….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. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 10.12.2024, in Civil Writ Petition No.1473 of 2024, titled as Ranbir Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, filed by the present appellant. 2. Accordingly, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches by noticing that the claim as such of 172 days’ compensatory leave [Sunday rests] for work done in terms of Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, with interest was the claim. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:6315 - 2 - 3. Learned Single Judge has further noticed that retirement of the employee was on 31.03.2019 and the writ petition was only filed in the year 2024. It is further accordingly held that even a period of 3 years had expired and therefore, the writ petition as such was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 4. We are of the considered opinion that the view of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity as any contrary view would amount to opening a Pandora’s Box of all retired employees, who would start seeking the benefit which they have not claimed during their service period. 5. The reliance on Annexure A/1 now placed on records also does not strengthen further case of the appellant in terms of instructions dated 15.03.2023 as certain writ petitions are pending before this Court and the directions are that employees who are on the verge of retirement and have compensatory leave in their credit, be got exhausted/liquidated first before the retirement of such employee’s and that the Corporation intends to pay the due’s as per the act. 6. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that once an employee as such was a fence sitter and 2025:HHC:6315 - 3 - chose not to agitate for his grievances during his period of service and has approached this Court after a period of almost five years after the date of retirement, no indulgence can be granted to such a litigant. 7. Even otherwise, it would have far reaching consequences, if such, an indulgence is granted it shall lead to all retired employees staking their claims even though their claims had been barred by limitation and even a civil suit could not have been filed for recovery of the amount. 8. Settled principles of law of limitation bar the remedy if a person is not vigilant enough. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by learned Single Judge, as it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge March 13, 2025 [Bhardwaj/himani]